The Firm and Fast Ideal

[Phil Benedict]

It's an article of faith here that the best golfing conditions are firm and fast.  At the risk of heresy, is it possible to go too far in pursuit of the firm and fast ideal?  Certain architectural features are problematical if the course is too fast - hazards in front of a green, for example or approach shots to elevated greens.  Should every hole permit a ground approach?  Irrigation systems are a form of progress, after all and there's nothing wrong with a high, soft shot.

[Andy Troeger]

Phil,
  Good luck with this one. I tried to argue that conditions could be too fast and firm once and didn't get much support and hope I don't end up re-arguing that...but I for one agree with you!

[Voytek Wilczak]

Were the greens at the latest Shinnecock US Open too firm and fast? I am sure this was discussed here ad nauseum and there must have been a TMO (Treehouse Majority Opinion - clever, huh? - OK, maybe not...).

Anyway, I think the fairways can never be too firm and fast, unless they are dead, but the greens can.

[Sean_A]

Phil

I do think courses can get too firm.  This is what people really mean when they say a course such as Rye plays better in the winter.  In the summer it can be too firm.  Although usually it just takes a day of rain to make the conditions perfect again.  

I think perfect f&f conditions are when the driver can still be in play on most holes with an element of risk.  Once it becomes too risky to bother with driver an many holes than I think conditions are too firm, but in my experience this is very rare occurence.  Either way, I don't like to see even high approaches chew up a green.  A little bruising or a bit of a skip mark are ok.  

I don't necessarily think every hole should be approachable with the ground game.  It is nearly always wise to mix things up a bit.  What is critical about the aerial game is requiring players to be in the correct position.  A good position is having a the proper angle of attack which affords the space necessary to hit a high approach to a firm green.  There is no point in having soft greens because it means even mediocre players can hold greens when they are out of position.

All in all (assuming the course isn't going to die), I would prefer weather to dictate conditions rather than man because the course will play differently nearly everytime out.  When water gets applied by man courses start to play the same everyday and this is a shame.

Ciao

Sean

[A_Clay_Man]

Phil, The problem is that progress, as you describe it, has resulted in 48-60 high soft shots every round. One aspect of striving for F&F, is that only mother nature gets to be the one who over waters.
And to answer your question about every hole having somewhat of a receptive front to ground approachs. The ansewer is Yes, almost every hole should give the golfer the option of deciding the proper shot. Opposed to the subjectivity of the "good" golfer, who only knows the high far and soft and likely thinks any game other than that(his own) isn't worhty of consideration in archiitecture. 18 aerial assualt holes is pure shot dictation and IMO an expression of selfishness.

[Mark Brown]

Reason must prevail. Each course, and in some cases each hole must be evaluated individually. The Redan hole (7?) at Shinnecock during the US Open was over the top IMHO

[Joe Hancock]

All I can say is that firm and fast doesn't mean the grass has to be cut shorter.

Joe

[James Bennett]

Sean Arble

that is an excellent post defining your view of 'firm and fast'  One for the vault.  The balance of balls running uncontolled being too dry, plus the requirement that there should be aerial tests somewhere, plus the importance of variety in how a course plays from day to day through mother nature.  The key variables are written here, succinctly.

James B

[Marc Haring]

 There is no point in having soft greens because it means even mediocre players can hold greens when they are out of position.

Sean.

Never a truer word has been spoken.

I really feel that this message needs to go out to the masses if we are to achieve fun, inspiring, user friendly, affordable and environmentally sustainable golf.

[JESII]

Reason must prevail. Each course, and in some cases each hole must be evaluated individually. The Redan hole (7?) at Shinnecock during the US Open was over the top IMHO

As Joe Hancock implies, the problem with the Redan was more the speed of the green than its firmness. My understanding of firm and fast in this context is for lively action once the ball hits the ground due to firm conditions through the green. The speed of the greens should be determined by each course, but needless to say, 13+ stimp greens are going to be excessive anywhere.

[A_Clay_Man]

Mark Brown,
Do you think the altered teeing ground angle had something to do with your opinion?

For guys that supposedly can stop balls on sewer caps, I still don't see what all the fuss was about?

[JESII]

Brian,

Not sure about how to answer the "mantra" question, but I would think a firm and fast mindset would be most appealing at the public courses across the country. Less water expense, healthier turf = lower costs, no worry about members feeling inadequate because their course does not glow neon green. Just my thoughts.

[Ron Farris]

Brian - A good friend and golf course architect friend of mine in Japan equated golf courses to women.  He was referring to being narrow at the tees (feet), wide at the hips (landing area), narrow at the mid section (between the 1st and 2nd landing areas), bold hazards at the breast (2nd landing area), and a beautiful face (green site-sometimes well protected, sometimes very receptive).  If one equates enjoyment of golfing to women then FIRM & FAST will please some but get others in great trouble!

[JESII]

I would venture to say that a course in the right climate for its particular grass could maintain its greens between 8 and 10 with very little water. The trouble absolutely comes in when someone wants the greens to really fly, then the super is challenged because of the shorter blade heights. Expectation management and understanding of the full product are undersupplied at the membership and management levels across the USofA.

Disclosure: I'm no turf guy.

[Ron Farris]

INDEED the conditions in the back of the limo were FIRM & FAST - At least from the far side.  Separation was to great but the hazards were far too great to risk even a layup shot.
I have to finish a routing plan this morning so I am logging off, but Firm and Fast is not for everyone, but most people fanticize about it where it is obtainable or not depends upon the strength and knowledge of the keeper of the greens.

[Steve Lang]

 

Firm and fast like at Rustic or Kingsley are great fun, yet if you've got the shots, aerial games are just that, and sometimes needed to accomodate the F&F.. so I don't see it as a yes/no issue..

throw in a baranca or creek or wasteland and go for it..

[RJ_Daley]

I also think Sullivan has it right.  The soil-ground conditions can be extreemly firm and fast, if the mowing height is correct for the soil water conditions.  So, if the green is really firmed up (to the extent proper sand base and proper sand particle size %s are present)  then the speed thing is better addressed at the mowing height consideration.  Proper sand mix on greens, with proper turf coverage can't get too hard to be unfair, IMHO.

The most firm conditions of majors I can think of recently were Shinny and TOC, 2000.  The Redan at Shinny wasn't unfair because it was too firm.  It was too fast because it was cut too short.  And, it was unfair because of the mid round watering controversy.  It should have played the same for everyone.

But in my mind, TOC Open 2000, was the zenith of how a links course should play.  Every iron off the FW was a puff of dust.  The greens held properly played shots, or those laid on the ground and run up with the deft touch.  Tiger had that down to perfection.  And, when he wanted to loft one in, he did so and held most greens.

About the only soil condition that won't last too long under extreme drought with too much usage of carts or pressure stress is too high of a clay base.  Even with that, I've seen clayey soils get so dry that the ground cracks, yet the turf did come back.  If the LZ is too narrow and the fw can't be held, then perhaps the question is, what height/width of intermediate rough should be provided.

Come to think of it, I think a wise old wag used the term, "maintenance meld" once, that might have something to do with all this...

[RJ_Daley]

Ron Farris, it sounds like you have a great inside story to report regarding your limo comments.  A great reason to attend one of the GCA.com golf outtings for 19th hole entertainment.

[George Pazin]

Were the greens at the latest Shinnecock US Open too firm and fast? I am sure this was discussed here ad nauseum and there must have been a TMO (Treehouse Majority Opinion - clever, huh? - OK, maybe not...).

This was in fact discussed quite a bit. Some lawyer even came on here and said he was seriously filing a lawsuit against the USGA over the debacle - whatever became of that? Jack somebody? He seemed to feel those of us defending the setup were idiots, my favorite tactic when arguing a position.

After all was said and done, the initial outrage was shouted down by a few of us stalwarts.

Shinney '04 was the dream for me, along with Sandwich '03. No such thing as too firm. Too fast, maybe, but not too firm.

[Ron Farris]

Mr. Daley it is not a great as Brian Gracely might suggest but I spent 3 hours in the back seat of a limo with Jan Stephenson and my wife on a ride back to the hotel from a golf course in Japan where Jan had played that day and she did not want to ride the bus that typically transported the players back and forth to the club during tournaments.  At the time I was working with the Dye organization building golf courses.  Perry referred to it as "life as it should be - not as it is".  Nonetheless, as a newbie I would certainly like to attend a GCA outing.

[Mike_DeVries]

Irrigation systems are a form of progress, after all and there's nothing wrong with a high, soft shot.

Just because we have irrigation systems doesn't mean we should be lazy and turn them on all the time - they are a tool and need to be utilized to nurture turf to still play firm and fast, not green, wet, and lush.  

I agree there is nothing wrong with a high, soft shot -- that is a description of the shot, not the result of ill-maintained American-style golf that allows a poorly executed shot to stop easily.  Jack's ability to control a high iron play was a true testament to his greatness but today's players have lush turf and equipment that allows them to all do that (plus they are only hitting short irons 90% of the time on their approaches!).  True fast and firm conditions will reward great shot-making and that is the essence of the game.

[Doug Siebert]

 There is no point in having soft greens because it means even mediocre players can hold greens when they are out of position.

Sean.

Never a truer word has been spoken.

I really feel that this message needs to go out to the masses if we are to achieve fun, inspiring, user friendly, affordable and environmentally sustainable golf.

You do realize "the masses" are the mediocre players who mostly can't hold greens unless they are what most of us in GCA consider overly soft, right?  I don't think that would quite be the way to get the message across.  I hear 10 people complain that greens are too hard for every one that complains they are too soft (and that one is usually me)

Too many courses today are designed with the expectation that you have to loft it in and hold it.  So many in fact, that most people don't even see the strategy for where to bounce the ball in when it is allowed.  If there's a collar of rough all the way around the green, the option is pretty dicey even if doable.

I try to explain to people why firm greens are desireable, by adding options, making you think more, adding challenge.  Most of the time I think what they are hearing me say is "blah blah blah blah the game will be harder for you blah blah blah".

I'm not quite sure how you explain to a guy who shoots 93 on an average day and one of his few thrills is sticking an iron or utility wood in close every third round that it'd be better if that shot bounced to the back of the green.  Or why it is good that when we're both standing 165 from the hole with a pin cut right behind a bunker that its fair that I can hit my 8i in and have a chance of keeping it close, while his 4i or 7W leaves him no chance of doing so.

Its hard to argue that "well, if you played your drive at the extreme right edge of the fairway you'd have a better angle that would allow you to bounce it in" when all he's doing and all he's really capable of doing is just trying to hit it anywhere in the fairway off the tee!

[JohnH]

"they are a tool and need to be utilized to nurture turf to still play firm and fast, not green, wet, and lush."

What?  So we can't have green, lush turf and STILL be firm and fast?

I've perused this site often with not many posts, and it's rare that I come here and this is not a topic of conversation on the first page or two.  In my experience there are literally a hundred different things going on in every square foot of turf on a golf course.  To me, perfecting this firm/fast balance to the personal preferences of 375 bosses is unachievable, so 10 guys on a board of directors relay to me what "they" want.  It's a totally subjective opinion.  What is firm and fast to some, isn't to others.  I guess it's what makes the job challenging and fun.

I've played with many club pro's and amateurs alike (myself barely included) and the general consensus is that smoothness and consistency of the greens is paramount, and that the fairways provide a good roll after the landing rather than a plugged ball.  So, I have two goals at the start of each season - greens that roll a 9 during regular play, and 11 during tournaments and special functions.  It seems to keep the majority happy.  

[Marc Haring]

Doug

You are right but is there an answer. Is it possible to get ‘the masses’ to appreciate firm and fast or is this just an idealistic pipe dream?

At the recent debate on sustainable greenkeeping at the British turf show in Harrogate, that very question was asked of the R&A and basically was not answered. There was a resigned acceptance that the average golfer these days equates quality with green and soft and super quick greens, surely a product of TV and the pro game.

I don’t know what the answer is but maybe if we also opened up the fairways a bit to reintroduce simple strategy that has been lost on so many courses and maybe if just a few of those TV events were played on greens with sustainable green speeds and where the fairways had a more natural look and maybe if the commentators all stated in unison that these conditions were the ideal that all should be striving for and perhaps if the top players in parting with their perceived unbounded wisdom agreed that these were the perfect conditions for golf and maybe if it was also explained that you don’t have to spend an absolute fortune on greenfees when courses without water or excessive fertiliser also do not need mowing so much and maybe we should quote the good doctor, a self confessed duffer who still opened the eyes to the golfing world to the joys of the ground game.

It would be a tragedy if we just gave up.

[TEPaul]

"It's an article of faith here that the best golfing conditions are firm and fast.  At the risk of heresy, is it possible to go too far in pursuit of the firm and fast ideal?  Certain architectural features are problematical if the course is too fast - hazards in front of a green, for example or approach shots to elevated greens.  Should every hole permit a ground approach?  Irrigation systems are a form of progress, after all and there's nothing wrong with a high, soft shot."

PhilB:

Of course it's possible to go too far in pursuit of firm and fast conditons. What do you think the whole idea or fear of "going over the top" is all about? Look at Shinnecock's #7 and #10 in the Open. That alone created a fire-storm of controversy and wrecked an otherwise pretty interesting Open.

Going too far with firm and fast is probably the single biggest danger to getting the whole idea of "ideal" firm and fast conditons more prevalently promoted and accepted.

My whole idea and process of the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" is pretty complex and it's as much to prevent firm and fast playing conditions from going over the top or too far as it is to promote them in the first place.

The ideal amount of firm and fast on most courses in my opinion is this;

1. "Through the green"=about 40-50 yards of bounce and run.

2. The green surfaces should only "lightly dent" to a well struck 9 iron from a good player from the fairway.

If most golf courses, particularly the older more ground game oriented ones can maintain those two conditions just like that as consistently as weather and schedules permit the course and the club will pretty much have nailed the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" and reached the ideal goal.

By the way, that IMM I just cited will promote high soft shots as well. That's what would logicially be used for the most aggressive play. The real benefit is that for a golfer to play that kind of approach shot it's fairly necessary for him to set it up from the tee too. This is what demanding or almost forcing "unified strategic" golf is all about. This is as good as the architecture of courses can present itself.