Selling Brown, light green, tan, golden, non-lush etc...

[Joe Hancock]

Tom P,

Regarding post #23, you are either doing a good job of learning, or a good job of retaining and repeating what you've heard.

I suspect you're learning, even if Pat M disagrees.

Joe

[Kyle Harris]

Joe,

That's the rub though, that sort of ethic comes in the learning of the game. It's tough to sell a concept like firm & fast to golfers who spend the majority of their practice time learning to throw darts on to greens and have them stick.

"That's all well and good, but why should the course change when I've been practicing for 5, 10, 20, 30 years to get the ball to stick on the green..."

I mainly work with juniors, and the prediliction is there too. They look at me funny when I tell them the good golfer seeks to get the ball on the ground as early as possible, especially around the greens when the first thing they reach for starts with an "L" and ends with an "ob wedge."

*sigh*

Etc.

[TEPaul]

"I know it, you know and most on this site may know it, but John Q. Public doesn't, so they only know what the SEE and round and round we go!"

Scott:

I realize that but Jim Thompson asked me what some of us plan to do about that, about what we think we're trying to take "on the road" so to speak. This is what we're going to do. Has anybody really tried to take this "on the road" before? Not that I'm aware of. Not that the supers I'm dealing with are aware of.  

They're committed, they just want to know the best way to organize it. Some of them are so dedicated they say they'll go outside their own organization if they have to or outside the USGA Green section and its regional reps.

I told them I don't believe they'll have to go outside the USGA's Green Section and their regional reps. I already had a long conversation with Jim Snow about this issue of firm and fast and he understands it obviously and he seems into it too at least as an alternative. I believe if we can show him and the Green Section that there're clubs out there who want to do it, or want to know about it and how to do it we can get the USGA and their Green Section to get behind it too, at least as an alternative. They have never done that before but if we show them there's interest out there I see no real reason they won't get on board too---at least, as I said, as an alternative. That's the sense I got anyway from the conversation with Jim Snow. And I think that's very good news for prospect of firm and fast in our future.

John Q public golfer? To be honest I have no idea how to get to him on this now. This that really necessary at this point? If we interest enough clubs in this and good clubs and courses others down the line will follow, in my opinion. That's historically how these things happen.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P,

Regarding post #23, you are either doing a good job of learning, or a good job of retaining and repeating what you've heard.

I suspect you're learning, even if Pat M disagrees.

Joe"

Joe:

You're right about that. As I told you last week I don't know that much about agronomy or the techncial aspects of it. I never have. Maybe some thought I did but I didn't. I'm trying to learn it of course because if this message is going to go on the road all those who are carrying it have to know what they're talking about because they're going to get questioned big-time and aggressively. I learned a lot recently from about five supers around here, particularly the ramifications of "dormancy" and then I talk to guys like you to see if you confirm it etc. I must have 75 supers from around the country in my cell phone and at least 25 architects. I just keep seeing if the things I'm learning are things that are confirmable. It's an interesting education to say the least. I've been doing it for about 5-6 years now and what I've learned is there is just a huge communication gap between supers in America and memberships in the form of green and golf committees. The communication and information gap is just HUGE.

It didn't suprise me that much how totally uninformed most all green committees are on technicalities of agronomics but what really did surprise me is how uninformed so many supers are on the technicalties of this type of firm and fast  PLAYABILITY. So I think this is closing the communication and informantion gap rather rapidly and both ways.

And because I've never known much about the technicalities of agronomy that's exactly why I come at this from the side of PLAYABILITY first. And that's why I think this whole thing has to be approached from the side of PLAYABILITY first because the people we have to deal with don't understand the technicaliites of agronomy either, matter of fact a whole lot less than even I do. And memberships and golf and green committees don't understand the technicalities of this type PLAYABILITY either. Why would they, so few over here have ever seen it in PLAY?

When I talk to supers, and particularly my own I realized I had to totally DEFINE what this kind of PLAYABLITY of firm and fast I was talking about meant. In the beginning I had no idea that even my own super did not know what I was talking about PLAYABILITY-wise with firm and fast.

It took me about 2-3 years to develop the thing specifically into what I think is a great goal and set of criteria. I call it the "Maintenance Meld" or the "Ideal Maintenance Meld". It's an entire muti-faceted perscription of PLAYABILITY to achieve an end in results on the course and with score, challenge, interest, enjoyment etc. And the good news is I'm beginning to even discover now (from talking to all kinds of supers all over the place) how it's adjustablity can work agronomically and playability-wise, and frankly that's key.

That's why I come at it from PLAYABILITY first and why I think that's the way it HAS to go to succeed.

We want to tell clubs----here's where we think you need to get to with PLAYABILITY and both us and particularly your super once he understands the precise PLAYABILITY goal are going to tell you how to get there agronomically and what it takes. In the past people were dealing with this stuff in something of a vacuum if they were dealing with it at all.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I agree with Joe.  Your post #23 really is a good encapsulization of the issue of dormancy which people most readily relate by colors.  They mistakenly believe the grasses are looking brown are dying when in fact they are doing what nature allows them to do over time...get hardier by extending their root systems and able to withstand stresses far better than the fragile pretty greens people interpret as healthy.  We start with playability as the key to getting people's interest and discuss the what it takes to achieve that playability and the counter-intuitive sense that light greens, yellows and browns are a sign of immenent disaster; they are adaptive behaviors by healthy grasses.  The immenent disasters come from stressing the dark green grasses.  

[Scott Witter]

Tom P.

As you know, many of those John Q. Publics I refer to are influencial members, Presidents, green chairmans, etc., at the BIG clubs in any given regional area. So I am in full agreement with you about the approach to the USGA Green Section...good move, very strong.  We are saying the same thing really.

Like anything else..this will get political its probably unaviodable and fine, so, as long as you have the right professionals/experts on board and on the road with you, don't forget to take one of those "dirt guys" (agronomists) with you, that way you don't have to know that technical stuff.  Yes, history will play a role in this, but unfortunately and historically speaking it takes a long time to bring about big change.

[TEPaul]

Scott:

I'm glad to hear who John Q Public is to you. Send them our way if you want to. I don't think I'm going on the road on this although I'd be willing. Guys like Brad Klien already are although he may be more into the architectural restoration club-process side of it rather than the maintenance side that we are. And if I did of course I'd take the supers who understand the techicalities. Hell, if we did that we could stand right in front of people and show them what a really productive "PLAYABILITY/AGRONOMY" conversation and education looks like and sounds like between a membership/committee and the Maintenance Department of a club.

I don't think we really need to go on the road actually. With the types of communications vehicles we all have today all we probably need to do is tape it, particularly if we can get an organization like the USGA involved.

[Craig Sweet]

I was talking with a guy at a party last night and he said, "hey, guess what I did today?" He played golf!!  Now, that might not seem odd, but we're in MONTANA!!!  He said they played regular greens..and everything was very firm and fast..as in frozen. So I asked him how he liked the firm and fast conditions and he said he adjusted and found a whole new appreciation for the "ground game"....and then he said, too bad it isn't firm and fast all summer too...

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents, an excellent thread.  

My two cents:

1) Some on this site are writers, and some might be in the  position to get articles written/included in the main-line golf and leisure magazines.

At some point in the process, I think it'd be useful to get them involved: an article here and there about "The Next Big Thing in Golf" (citing a return to the classic era; a countering of technological advances; a concern for the environment; and a desire to make golf more affordable) would help start or bolster a 'tipping point'.

2) It strikes me too that the USGA is the way to go. In Canada, the RCGA represents (it seems to me) primarily the elite private clubs; and those clubs/courses are most often designed by the great architects of the 20s and 30s, and so were made to be played fast and firm.

If those clubs and their members could be convinced that 'brown' is TNBTIG, the high end public courses would soon follow, and every other course would follow after that.

3) Finally, though Scott Witter and others know a LOT more about this that I do, I'd disagree with Scott's view of "John Q Golfer".  I think of John Qs as the hackers, beginners and addicts that I play with on Saturdays at the best (but most affordable) courses we can find.  If we were to show up one day and find the fairways brown, we'd say, "Ah, this is the way they most be doing it these day. Ya, in fact, I think I read about something like this in Golf Digest"...and off we'd go without a second thought.

Again, an excellent topic. I wish I were in some kind of  'position' to help it along.

P  

[Andy Troeger]

AndyT:

You're on the right track too. By that I mean you said you actually like the look of a darker deeper shade of green on a golf course much better than light green or certainly brownish. Only problem with that is courses of that color are almost never firm and fast for obvious reasons. Basically they can't be.

So using you as an example, for this firm and fast revolution to work we're going to have to convince you and a whole lot of people liky you that the PLAYABILITY of firm and fast IN AND OF ITSELF is worth every bit and hopefully a lot more than you're aversion to a lighter green or some brown.

Tom,
  I agree, the mission here has to convince people of this point. I would think that some of the issue has to do with specific golf courses though. There are a good many where making the commitment to fast and firm conditions would be beneficial (even at the loss of my preferred colors).
   My personal feeling is that some courses (including many of the greats evidently...I have not played them so I'm agreeing with the general consensus here) were designed with the ground game in mind. Others really are not, with forced carries onto fairways and greens, frontal hazards, and deep rough.
   Obviously those courses could be converted to play fast and firm, but would that make it a better place to play golf? The deep rough obviously can be corrected, but there must be some other defense to take its place (which works with fast and firm if you have interesting green sites...otherwise maybe not). The forced carries and frontal hazards would be more troublesome, as the condition of the course would not match the design that's calling for a high shot.
  For example, if #15 at ANGC were TOO firm, the hole would be ridiculous for the average player who would not be able to carry the pond and keep the ball on the green, leaving either a very delicate pitch or down the hill and into the pond. For a hole like that, or a course with many of those situations, I just don't think fast and firm really works.
   Its the reverse of the argument at the center of this debate: courses kept in soggy conditions despite a design that benefits the use of the ground game. My feeling is that the condition of the course has to match the intent of the designer. Whether that means brown, green, or something in between, so be it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Thompson,

It's a good, yet difficult question.

An immediate answer would be a dramatic increase in the cost of water, or, the rationing of water.

But, both of those examples are beyond the internal decision making capabilities of most clubs.

There are certain clubs that are held up and out to be shining examples of "Golf, as it should be"

Unfortunately, until those clubs go the brown-yellow-green route there's little chance that others will follow.

Fisher's Island and Newport are great examples of BYG=Beautiful, but, how many golfers get the opportunity to play those courses.  And, wouldn't the counter argument be that FI and NCC can't water those courses if they wanted to, and if they could, they might.

Water can also be great camoflage.
When green budgets are inadequate water can used to mask inherent problems.

The heart of the problem is democracy.
If a club has 400 members, you can be assured that they watch TV during the winter, or head off for occassional golf vacations in the South or Southwest.

If 300 of those members see nothing but green on their TV screens, and at the golf courses they frequent during the winter, what are the odds that the membership will want and endorse brownish-yellowish-green conditions when they return in the summer ?

While TEPaul may be optimistic, I don't see a grass roots movement of the magnitude he suggests.

However, I do see the awareness and desire to go that route on the part of some superintendents, but, in most instances they don't dictate course conditions.

[TEPaul]

"The forced carries and frontal hazards would be more troublesome, as the condition of the course would not match the design that's calling for a high shot.
  For example, if #15 at ANGC were TOO firm, the hole would be ridiculous for the average player who would not be able to carry the pond and keep the ball on the green, leaving either a very delicate pitch or down the hill and into the pond. For a hole like that, or a course with many of those situations, I just don't think fast and firm really works."

AndyT:

The very first thing you have to do when you get into this whole thing of firm and fast or what I generally call the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" is totally separate the "through the green" area (tee TO the green) from the green surfaces themselves. I didn't realize this at first about five years ago but if you don't do that and if you don't keep reminding people of that for some odd reason they tend to assume all you're talking about is the green surfaces themselves. Your example of the 15th at ANGC leads me to believe you're thinking too much about firmness on green surfaces.

The firmness of green surfaces is a whole different factor in the IMM from "through the Green" firmness and speed.

There's one key determining factor to do with green surface firmness and that key factor has nothing to do with "through the green" firmess.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

The average player is playing the hole from the "members tees" which makes the hole a 455 yard par 5.

The third shot, although short, can be dicey, but, it's with a lofted club, and, there's plenty of room behind the green.

An approach that goes long can be putted, chipped or pitched, depending upon the golfer's comfort zone.

You have to remember ANGC's season of operation is from October to May.  You only see the golf course in the narrow exposure of four days in April after it's been prepared to host a Major Championship.   Mother Nature dictates playing conditions for the greater part of their season, a winter season.

[TEPaul]

"While TEPaul may be optimistic, I don't see a grass roots movement of the magnitude he suggests."

Patrick:

Eventually this kind of thing will just start filtering down from the top more and more, and the playability of it will sell itself.

Just the example of HVGC is indicative. Ten years ago or even five years ago other clubs thought they were crazy and some players didn't like the playability. But almost all the players who said that back then have changed their minds, and a number of other clubs are now trying to do what they did all those years ago. What HVGC did is getting a lot of attention right now, and that's an indication.

This is going to happen. It won't happen everywhere but that's not the point. I'll predict that in ten years maybe 10-15% of the courses in America will be doing this, maybe even 15-20% and that's huge to me. Today even with it starting I'd say not 1/4 or 1% are doing it right now but that 1/4 of 1% is some pretty high profile courses and they will get the attention of a lot of others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

At the present time, I see the endorsement for BYG conditions coming more from Superintendents then I do from club memberships.

But, since the superintendent is an employee of the club, often their hands are tied, unless they have an unusual Green Chairman, President or Board.

[TEPaul]

I mentioned somewhere above that I've found in the last 5-6 years that very few from the membership understand the technicalities of agronomy----that's the realm of the maintenance department but far more surprising to me is I found so many supers, including my own who really is good, did not understand what firm and fast playability was.

So what is it?

To me, a golf course "through the green" is not firm and fast until and unless the golf ball off a tee shot, for instance, bounces and runs AT LEAST 50 yards.

And to me, greens are not firm until and unless greens do NOT allow even a really good player to suck a golf ball back after a well struck aerial shot even from the fairway. A light check of the ball afer a bounce or two but if the ball actually sucks back the greens aren't firm enough, in my opinion.

What this does in combination is put the aerial game and the ground game options in a form of balance or equilibrium. When you have that you have IDEAL playablity, in my opinion, and most courses, particularly the older ones just can't get more interesting, more thought provoking, more challenging, more fun or any better to play than that.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
At the present time, I see the endorsement for BYG conditions coming more from Superintendents then I do from club memberships.
But, since the superintendent is an employee of the club, often their hands are tied, unless they have an unusual Green Chairman, President or Board."

Patrick:

Obviously you're not hanging around the right people. You're sure not hanging around the people I am or you definitely wouldn't say that.

What is BYG, BTW?  

[Andy Troeger]

AndyT:

The very first thing you have to do when you get into this whole thing of firm and fast or what I generally call the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" is totally separate the "through the green" area (tee TO the green) from the green surfaces themselves. I didn't realize this at first about five years ago but if you don't do that and if you don't keep reminding people of that for some odd reason they tend to assume all you're talking about is the green surfaces themselves. Your example of the 15th at ANGC leads me to believe you're thinking too much about firmness on green surfaces.

The firmness of green surfaces is a whole different factor in the IMM from "through the Green" firmness and speed.

There's one key determining factor to do with green surface firmness and that key factor has nothing to do with "through the green" firmess.

Tom,
  I was thinking of both, but my main concerns with firm and fast conditions do come on the green end in cases like that. Firm and fast fairways are fine by me and I can see reason for encouraging them, and greens can be too within reason.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

The average player is playing the hole from the "members tees" which makes the hole a 455 yard par 5.

The third shot, although short, can be dicey, but, it's with a lofted club, and, there's plenty of room behind the green.

An approach that goes long can be putted, chipped or pitched, depending upon the golfer's comfort zone.

You have to remember ANGC's season of operation is from October to May.  You only see the golf course in the narrow exposure of four days in April after it's been prepared to host a Major Championship.   Mother Nature dictates playing conditions for the greater part of their season, a winter season.

Pat,
  This is all very true. I was using the hole as an example of one that might cause some problems IF it were too firm and fast. If both the green and the area behind it were maintained very firm and fast, it would seem like that could make the shot very dicey, even for a lower handicap.  

[TEPaul]

AndY:

Believe me, these guys who do the tournament set-ups for the Masters know what they're doing. They do get close to the edge on playabliltiy sometimes but if you give them ideal weather going in and during the tournament they're pretty good at nailing their set-up to be as good as it can get.

In the last two years, on Sunday particularly, they absolutely nailed it, particularly two yeas ago. A golf course to be really challenging but not over the top for tour pros just doesn't get any better than Sunday at the Masters in 2004. Not just that but it was incredible to see Mickelson and his caddie pick up on and execute on it the way they did. Not just the shots he hit but the sophisticated planning that went into them on the last nine on Sunday was just something to watch.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

BYG equals Brownish-Yellowish-Green.

I'm glad you liked my term, "conspiracy of features".
I think it's very apt in many cases.

Andy,

You can't apply generalizations, especially when dealing in extremes, to specific situations.

There's no doubt that approaching the 15th green is dicey under any conditions.

The fairway falls toward the water and from right to left, the bank fronting the green is steep and the green relatively narrow.

Decisions have to be made as to where each golfer feels most comfortable hitting his approach from.   Is it a 70 flop over the pond, a 120 yard full shot, a 150 yard full shot ?

Making the green fast and firm would certainly challenge any of those approaches.

But, you can't view the play of the hole in the limited context of four special days out of a season while ignoring the other 206 days of the season.

The members aren't playing during "Masters" week, and they're not playing the week or so before "Masters" week, when the golf course is groomed to be in peak condition.

You have to view the play of the hole as it occurs during the normal course of the season, from October to May, and not a week or so before it closes.   The same can be said of Seminole, which strives to acheive very firm and fast conditions in preperation of the "Coleman".  Those conditions, in mid-May would be virtually unplayable for the membership if they existed during their season, from October to May.

Again, you have to look at maintainance conditions in the context of how and for whom the golf course is being prepared.

[Andy Troeger]

You have to view the play of the hole as it occurs during the normal course of the season, from October to May, and not a week or so before it closes.   The same can be said of Seminole, which strives to acheive very firm and fast conditions in preperation of the "Coleman".  Those conditions, in mid-May would be virtually unplayable for the membership if they existed during their season, from October to May.

Pat...your last sentence is the exact point I am trying to make. IF those conditions existed they would be virtually unplayable for the membership. IF certain holes (and not even considering whether the 15th is one of them) are maintained too fast and firm they would be virtually unplayable. So basically, while fast and firm is good, I don't think it can be generally applied to every golf course and every golf hole in the world on an everyday basis.

The point of this thread originally seemed to be to promote these conditions in a general manner. I have no problem with promoting fast and firm conditions, but I think maintaining EVERY course fast and firm might create some weaknesses--although it might still be an improvement over maintaining EVERY course "slow and soft" (if that's a term  )

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy,

I think we disagree.

In general I favor firm and fast conditions.

While you can't deliver them universally, I believe it's the goal worth striving for.

Each golf course is unique, and any application of fast and firm conditions must be in the context of what the course can "reasonably" tolerate.

I'm not in favor of greens putting at 13, but, I think the desire to achieve reasonably firm and fast conditions is a worthy goal to strive for.

It's too easy to turn on the sprinklers and undo in one day what has taken years to accomplish, and that's why, in a general sense, firm and fast conditions should be the oject of everyone's affection.

PLUS,  They make the game so much more fun.

[Andy Troeger]

Andy,

Each golf course is unique, and any application of fast and firm conditions must be in the context of what the course can "reasonably" tolerate.

I'm not in favor of greens putting at 13, but, I think the desire to achieve reasonably firm and fast conditions is a worthy goal to strive for.

Pat,
 I actually really like what you're saying here, so we might not be as far off as you think. The difference, however, probably comes in our definitions of "reasonably." I'm admittedly lacking in having played very many great courses that played fast and firm, so hopefully someday I'll find out what I've been missing

[Andy Troeger]

AndY:

Believe me, these guys who do the tournament set-ups for the Masters know what they're doing. They do get close to the edge on playabliltiy sometimes but if you give them ideal weather going in and during the tournament they're pretty good at nailing their set-up to be as good as it can get.

In the last two years, on Sunday particularly, they absolutely nailed it, particularly two yeas ago. A golf course to be really challenging but not over the top for tour pros just doesn't get any better than Sunday at the Masters in 2004. Not just that but it was incredible to see Mickelson and his caddie pick up on and execute on it the way they did. Not just the shots he hit but the sophisticated planning that went into them on the last nine on Sunday was just something to watch.

Tom,
  I agree, the Masters on Sunday afternoon is truly something to behold. The last two Sundays have been about as riveting of golf TV as I've seen! Hopefully we'll get three in a row this April!