The "F" Words

[Steve Burrows]

FIRM and FAST

That’s right.  I said it.  

These words are spoken much these days; in fact, I am perpetuating the issue simply by addressing, and acknowledging it.  They are often celebrated on this forum as saviors of the game, as the missing element to successful design and maintenance philosophies.  

But this is not the case: Superintendents—who are the professionals, and, therefore, the experts in their field—are too divided on turf health issues, as well as the distribution of resources, for firm and fast to become mandatory; Player preferences are far too subjective for either one (firm and fast, or lush and soft) to be ideal.  

Designers, then, who are agents of these two groups, are ultimately responsible for giving them what they want (I certainly expect some disagreement with this).  An undesirable course, undesirably maintained, will not likely be successful.  Moreover, each area of this globe, each individual demographic, makes their own decisions with respect to which kinds of courses exist and are sustained in their area.  I would propose then, that firm and fast is not the answer, and neither is lush and soft.  I would propose that golf needs both to survive.  Monocultures are almost inherently negative.

[Joe Hancock]

My Friend,

I'm flabbergasted that one could find fault with firm and fast. Furthermore, feelings of fondness for fairways found to be forest green is fairly foreboding. Fortunes of farthings are flittered away by fellows for fungicides and fertilizers to further the faux....a fiduciary fiasco for future foursomes.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve,

I'd have to agree with Joe.

I can't see the objection to F&F where they're obtainable.

Noone is saying that they have to be mandated and noone is saying that they have to be employed where it's unrealistic to maintain them.

The general theme seems to be that IF they can be obtained, they should be obtained.

I feel comfortable stating that LUSH conditions aren't good for golf.   I can't think of ONE benefit for keeping a golf course soft and lush, can you ?

[James Bennett]

My Friend,

I'm flabbergasted that one could find fault with firm and fast. Furthermore, feelings of fondness for fairways found to be forest green is fairly foreboding. Fortunes of farthings are flittered away by fellows for fungicides and fertilizers to further the faux....a fiduciary fiasco for future foursomes.

 

Hey FBD

how many 'F's are in this paragraph?  More than the three (sorry, six) that were in your recent word-game post!  It includes a couple of 'of's to confuse the average f-counter.

James B

[Adam Clayman]

From the current Geoff Shackelford'd website.

I do not believe in forcing a run-up shot in preference to a pitch in every case. But, when one goes to the trouble of placing a bunker across the left side of the green in order to force the tee shot toward the right side of the fairway, why destroy its effect by soaking the green so that any sort of pitch over the bunker will hold?  BOBBY JONES

Steve Burrows, Mother nature should be the only one who dictates soft and lush. Appeasing the members who compliain, based on thier own game are being selfish, and, any decent professional should ignore them.

[Dan Kelly]

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

No

one

can.

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

Thank you for bringing up this subject.

In our office, the "F" word is "fairness".  Because we cannot control firm or fast.

But the important thing to understand is that in some locales, the superintendent cannot control it, either.  If it's clay, forget about it.  If it's Portland, forget about it.

On the other hand, in some places, you have no choice.  I will never forget when we were building Pacific Dunes, and people came out during construction, a lot of people said, "Well, if they can keep it firm and fast, it will be pretty good," and Ken said to me, "How could I not in this climate?  It's so sandy and so dry in the summer, I can't understand how I could mess that up."  

Likewise, if the soils and climate are against you, what chance do you have?  If you build a course which DEPENDS on firm and fast conditions in a situation that won't allow for it consistently, that would be stupid.

[Michael Dugger]

To me, when I hit an approach shot short and it plugs and gunks up in the turf, I am let down.

The game of golf becomes a TOTALLY different challenge under fast and firm conditions.  

You must think your shots through much more carefully, this in turn makes golf course architecture more evident.  We cannot simply consider the location and size of a green, pull a club and whack away.  We must think about good misses and bad misses, where do we DEFINATELY not want to be.  Go through this checklist in your mind and a particular shot will emerge as the proper one to play.

I don't think mushy conditions allow for the thought-provoking game that fast and firm conditions do.

Call it whatever you want--a revolution--but fast and firm is far from a new concept that is going to save golf, just maybe golf in america.  The "F" word is as old as golf itself.  

It was written, "They are often celebrated on this forum as saviors of the game, as the missing element to successful design and maintenance philosophies."

Really, are you serious?  



 

[Steve Burrows]

I find it interesting that proponents of firm and fast, who believe that golf should provide numerous options, so stubbornly hold on to this one way of playing the game as THE way to play.  But it can't be the right way, not all the time.

But this is not real reason that I began the post.  My real problem with firm and fast is that it is a buzz word, in the same vein as "lean and mean," or "championship golf."  They are thrown around on this site and elsewhere with little consequence.  Buzz words only sell golf courses, the do not make them better.  That is why these types of words are "F" words; that is why they are dangerous.

[Adam Clayman]

Steve,
 The stubborness you cite is, IMO founded in objectivity. i.e Not based on MY game.

THE GAME that repeated soft and lush conditioning has wrought is flat out uninspiring. Identifying the hardest swingers, who may or may not have the internal fortitude and imagination, to deal with the vagaries fundamentally based on the unpredictable nature of nature. Be it Human, physical and plant life.

[RJ_Daley]

Steve in business mission statements, they use "buzz words" galore.  You know; consistancy of purpose, sustainable earnings, branding, and many more I don't want to sit and think about now.  Why not use a term that is an ideal condition that is a goal for the maintenance staff to achieve?  If the term fairly describes the conditions desired, why is it that you seem to wish to diminish the terms as a gimick or less than a proper description of what the conditions are that we desire?  Firm and fast.  We could say hard and runny, or bouncy and boundy, or bing bang and boom.  But, firm and fast seems most appropos, IMHO.

[Dan Kelly]

Firm and fast.  We could say hard and runny, or bouncy and boundy, or bing bang and boom.

Dick --

You talking about golf courses here? Or ... ?

Dan

[Steve Burrows]

Adam Clayman wrote:

"The stubborness you cite is, IMO founded in objectivity. i.e Not based on MY game."

With respect, objectivity has very little to do with this conversation.  This one deals with preferences, which are highly, and almost necessarily, subjective.  What if I said, "Football is more enjoyable than Baseball," or "William Shakespeare is a better writer than John Grisham?"  One could find tens of millions of people (experts, scholars, etc.) to support both of these positions, but there is still no truth in either, only subjective preferences.  Similarly, attitudes towards firm and fast playing conditions are decidely personal and subjective.  None of them are defensible as objective statements.

Moreover, citing objectivity on behalf of firm and fast seems to contradict one of its main premises.  Again, the real stance in favor of firm and fast is, indeed, its subjectivity; that is, people can make their own decision as to how to approach a given shot.  Conversely, the dominant argument against soft conditions (and for that matter, penal design) is that is is overly objective; e.g. I am 173 yards from the flag and I have to carry that bunker in order to be close.  The reality is that you should be celebrating its subjectivity.  

[JESII]

Steve,

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?

[Adam Clayman]

There is no defense for preferring a watered down version of the sport, other than ignorance.

F&F is healthier for the turf and the golfers mind. Humbling, yet fullfilling, unlike like the missed dart.

Added;

If the words of one Robert Tyre Jones won't convince you, nothing will.

[JESII]

Steve:

In our office, the "F" word is "fairness".  Because we cannot control firm or fast.

But the important thing to understand is that in some locales, the superintendent cannot control it, either.  If it's clay, forget about it.  If it's Portland, forget about it.


Likewise, if the soils and climate are against you, what chance do you have?  If you build a course which DEPENDS on firm and fast conditions in a situation that won't allow for it consistently, that would be stupid.

Tom,

Please tell me that you at least consider the most likely conditions of play during your design process.

[Gary Slatter]

I love firm and fast, sometimes hard and fast is fun too but members don't like that much excitement. I was fortunate to open Bob Cupp's Mad River GC in 1995 - it was perfect F&Fon opening day and 90 days later was Green and wet and slow, the super was already changing some areas from bent to rye so he could keep members happy (while I was trying to show them how to roll the ball through Cupp's chipping areas, instead of automatically lobbing the ball with L-wedges).
Are many courses better on opening day than a year later?
The F word I dread is Free.

[tonyt]

I find it interesting that proponents of firm and fast, who believe that golf should provide numerous options, so stubbornly hold on to this one way of playing the game as THE way to play.  But it can't be the right way, not all the time.

Steve, I think you worry too much and read too much into it.

It appears from this website that in the US, there is an abundance of over watering of courses. Thus, it is an appropriate time for the firm and fast mantra to be chanted. Less fanatical would be the cause were this not the case. The passion for it is not driven by this one dimensional mindest, but by the need to increase its awareness and frequency to above what it is now. If all courses were all dried out in spring in a claybelt area with high rainfall, then this too would be too concocted and perhaps a movement against such a tide would exist.

I think it is obvious. If it is a lush time of year and the land surrounding a golf course is lush, then the course will be naturally lush. And then for 1-3 months in mid to late summer or early fall, if the general land in the area will be drier and firmer, the golf course should reflect this. Irrigation should serve the cause of turf health. Nature will decide how firm or how lush.

The key being that the golf course shouldn't play unfortunately soft among surrounding dry conditions. It is too contrived and too fake to get mud on your ball after two weeks of not a drop of rain. By not differing much at all between the seasons, golf becomes too one dimensional.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

I think the flaw in your position is as follows.

Firm & Fast does not eliminate the aerial game.

But, Soft & Lush eliminates the ground game.

So, in the context of options, it's Soft & Lush that eliminates them.  Fast & Firm increases and enhances the options.

[Steve Burrows]

How does one reconcile all of this with the reality that many golf clubs (the actual implement for playing the game) are being designed and built for the lower handicap player, for them to get the ball airborne?

Also, "eliminate the ground game" are a pretty strong words.  One must admit that there is a middle ground between a course with clay soils that just recieved two inches of rain and (just for the sake of an example), this past years Open Championship at Hoylake, yes?  Everywhere in there, which is probably where the majority of courses keep their conditions, the ball still rolls.
   

[Voytek Wilczak]

F&F is great for this reason:

It allowed this 18-handicap, who drives it 200 yards, on one Jersey muni which was dry as a bone, to hit a 300 yard drive, the last 100 yards of it being roll...

Much better than hitting a cart path, and the feeling is awesome.

[Adam Clayman]

How does one reconcile all of this with the reality that many golf clubs (the actual implement for playing the game) are being designed and built for the lower handicap player, for them to get the ball airborne?
   

Implements designed for the low handicapper? Fiduciary responsibility should dictate designing for the masses.  Which Low handicaps are not.

The evolution of the canvas took a wrong turn when the aerial assualt dominated the design features.

Golf took another wrong turn when an "Industry" mindset set-in, and courses were built to capitalize on immediate profits. Versus building courses for the good of the sport.

Troon golf is now owned by GSachs (or some other wall street firm), who I'm quite sure, if left to their own devices, would keep going taking the sport in the way of the dodo, if it weren't for the wisdom chronicled within these wheat fields known as gca.com

[PThomas]

I think a lot of people still want their golf courses - GOd only know s why - to be green, the "Augusta Syndrome"...I think a lot of pwople still equate lush green with healthier turf

the assistant pro at my club was saying how some of the new memebers were saying how they want this...... (in addition to  moaning how the greens are slower than last year, which of course is due to the TONS of  rain we've had in the last two months)

maybe a hefty increase in water prices would stop this nonsense!

[Darren_Kilfara]

Chris Kane and I played Cruden Bay twice yesterday. I've played Cruden Bay a few times in very firm and fast conditions in the summertime, and it was a very exacting test - even borderline ridiculous in a few places. By contrast, it had rained for the last few days before yesterday, and there was a constant mizzle throughout the day as well. The course therefore played very long (the ball wasn't going anywhere), and quite soft. It was a completely different test - i.e. different parts of my game were tested - but it was still immensely enjoyable.

Here's the point: many people think that Scottish links golf and "firm and fast" are synonymous. They are not. If Mother Nature gives you soft and slow, then that's what you get! And frankly, if links golf were always super-firm and super-fast, I think I'd tire of it, because 300 yard drives notwithstanding (cf. Voytek), the F&F game can be extremely difficult. It's the *contrast* between different conditions at different times of year which makes the game over here so interesting, IMHO.

Cheers,
Darren

[Patrick_Mucci]

How does one reconcile all of this with the reality that many golf clubs (the actual implement for playing the game) are being designed and built for the lower handicap player, for them to get the ball airborne?

One reconciles that by understanding that your statement is incorrect.

The low handicap player knows how to get the ball airborne.
It's the high handicap player who needs the assistance.

Many of the better players continue to use blades.

Also, "eliminate the ground game" are a pretty strong words.


What you miss is that the words "soft" and "lush" are STRONG words, and in the context of those words/conditions, the ground game IS eliminated.

One must admit that there is a middle ground between a course with clay soils that just recieved two inches of rain and (just for the sake of an example), this past years Open Championship at Hoylake, yes?  

I already alluded to the middle ground.
Why do you keep returning to extremes ?

It's not just that the course has clay soils, that can't be changed, nor can the amount of rain that falls on that course be altered.
But, what can be changed is the amount of water applied to that course vis a vis irrigation systems.

When additional water is over-introduced and "soft & lush" conditions become the normal playing conditions, the aerial game is eliminated.

Everywhere in there, which is probably where the majority of courses keep their conditions, the ball still rolls.

I don't think 3 feet or 3 yards constitutes substantive roll.

The firmer and faster a golf course gets, the more enjoyable the game, for everyone.

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

Why settle for substandard, overwatered conditions ?