[Patrick_Mucci]

Last weekend I was having lunch with some fellows who sit on the board of their club.

A discussion regarding green speed occured.

They were praising how fast the greens were putting at their club.  I pointed out that it was 32 degrees a few days earlier and that their club would be closing for the season in a few weeks.  And, that if they liked the firm, fast putting surfaces they should strive to attain those conditions during the normal golfing season.

I indicated that F&F throughout the golf course would benefit the general membership.

One fellow disagreed.
He thought that the greens should be F&F, but that the fairways should be lush, inhibiting roll.

When I asked him why, he explained that he regularly plays against a fellow who hits a low draw (he hits a high fade) and that this fellow would gain 50 or more yards if conditions were F&F on the fairways.

When I explained that most of the fairways at his club were canted, or doglegs, and that a ball running a long distance, without precision, would probably end up in the rough, he started to agree.

But, as I reflected on an incident this summer, I started to have my own doubts as to the benefit of F&F conditions.

While playing in a Member-Guest I was paired with a young fellow who hit a low draw, and, he hit it a long way, probably 50 or more yards past me, leaving himself fairly short approaches into all greens.

In addition, architectural features, such as bunkers, never interfaced with his game.

And, I noticed a trend.
More than a few young fellows were hitting the ball beyond the influence of the architecture

While the golf course was in good shape, if F&F conditions were optimal, this fellow would have a sand or lob wedge into most, if not every green.

New drivers make it easier to hit the ball straight, and even if he was off line, being 50 to 100 yards from every green and hitting a sand or lob wedge from the rough is not a difficult shot.

But, you say, if the greens were F&F he'd have a far more difficult time getting close to the hole from the rough, even with a sand or lob wedge.  Well, maybe you're right, but, what about the golfer who's hit his tee shot 200 yards and now has 200 yards into that same green ?  For him, that's almost an impossible shot.  Or, what about the guys who hit it 230 and 250 off the tee, leaving them 170 and 150 from the green ?  They too have difficult shots, hitting 5-irons and
7-irons into that F&F green.

So, you say, grow the rough deep and thick at 250 to 350 yards.

Well, what about the women golfers, the senior golfers and the high handicap golfers who find that rough.  They will be unable to extract their ball, provided they can find it.

What about the pace of play ?

If a club grows the rough high and thick, and has F&F greens, it won't be long before the membership is up in arms and one of the two, if not both, will GO.  The greens will be softened and the rough cut.

Most northern clubs target their rough at about 2.5 inches, which is reasonable for member play.  Anything more becomes controversial, especially if F&F conditions exist.

Those who say that you defend a hole at the green end are viewing the issue in the narrowest of context's.  
Memberships, with a wide variety of abilities, must navigate every green, and making the green sites devilishly difficult will result in a palace revolt.

Defending par at the green makes the hole unduely difficult for the bulk of the membership, and as such, isn't a viable alternative.

While F&F might be prefered conditions, Mother Nature makes achievement of same difficult, and, when F&F comes to the point where the game ceases to be enjoyable for the membership, F&F will be history with but the turning of a faucet.

There is but one alternative.

The ball and implements must be dialed back.

It's the only way to restore the interfacing of the architecture with all levels of golfers.

[RDecker]

Pat,
Well said,  Firm and Fast is a nice ideal to strive for in modern times but realistically it doesn't offer the best conditions for the entire golfing community.  Be it a private high end club or the local muni the course has to be maintained in a way that all the golfers can enjoy and participate.  I wonder at times if the increase in the length and difficulty of the courses has pre-empted the need to attract new players.  As the golf boom of the 90's is clearly over we should focus on attracting more people to this wonderful sport and F&F will definitely be counterproductive to this endeavor.  I know that my mind tells me these classic courses were meant to be played this way and that my architectural integrity wants to see F& F to validate the brilliance of Ross, Tillie, Raynor, Flynn et al.  But realistically the course has to be accessible to all and I think in modern times especially the novice and less skilled player.  We can't attract new people to the game who are single digit handicappers, the new players need to be nurtured to become those type of players or at least competent enough to be bitten by the bug.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

In that mysterious dissertation of yours on F&F playing conditions (was that you talking in the end or were you paraphrasing that other guy you were talking to? ).

But as usual you seem to get about 2/3 of the way there and then you get confused and muddled.

You forgot the most important component of F&F and the IMM. That happens to be the approaches. It doesn't surprise me at all that you never even mentioned the approaches.

The approaches are the very first thing to focus on in establishing F&F playing conditions and the IMM. Approaches are in fact the lynch pin to the entire F&F and IMM equation. Approaches are the very first area to make F&F and functional. Not just that, it has to be defined and quantified---eg they have to bounce and roll perhaps 20-30 yards depending on the type of approach shot.

Without firm approaches the entire IMM disconnects. The degree to which approaches function for bounce and roll is about the degree to which green surfaces can be firmed up to create a basic equilibrium or balance in the selection of what kind of approach shot to choose.

The speed of the LZs is important but much less important than the firm and fast relationship of approaches to green surfaces.

If you have firm and fast greens and soft non-functional approaches you are going to basically nixx all approach options for most all players and you sure will have a palace revolt on your hands instantly.

This stuff is not rocket science, Patrick, how many times do I need to explain it too you?

When you get two out of three of these components then maybe we can discuss the LZs and even the rough.  

The only real maintenance obstacle to IMM is just how to handle the firmness of greens that don't have open approaches, that are aerial demand for all.

But were working on it and in a short time I should be able to unveil what might be called the "Fudge Factor"---eg they putt and chip the same but are just receptive enough to work fairly well for most if not all.  

The cool thing about green surface firmness is the ideal in any given situation is totally identifiable through pitch mark analysis.

[TEPaul]

Patrick, you know it really shocks me that you would post this thread. There are enough problems with people who have zero idea about this stuff, but you understand it pretty well and yet you and others like you manage to come up with more trivial reasons not to do it than those who have no understanding of it at all.

Back in the day the old architects knew how to design courses for times when conditions were dry and really firm. If they could make it work back then why in the hell can't we figure out how to do it today?

It just astounds me the crap people come up with not to do something for no good reason at all. I think too many people just like to argue for no real purpose or end at all. Apparently we live in a world of modern Devil's Advocates and you're one of them.  

This can work. It's worked before and it can work again, and if a club can't figure out how they're either pretty stupid or pretty obstinate.

[Padraig Dooley]

I played in an event on a course called Tudor Park in Kent two years running late june 2003 and early may 2004.

It's quite a short course par 70 all par 5s reachable and a couple of driveable par 4s.

There was no difference in the quality of players and if anything there was a bit more rough in 2004.

The cut in 2003 was +2, in 2004 was -2. The cut was 50 players from 156 after 2 rounds. The winning score was about -15 both years.

The difference between 2003 and 2004, 04 was soft, 03 was firm.

Firm conditions makes scoring harder for good players and easier for average players. Is this not a good thing?

I have yet to hear a good argument for soft over firm.

 

[JESII]

Ditto to all of your points Tom, and these two questions, first for Pat, and second for RDecker.

1) Why should the guy that can hit the ball 50 yards further than you and just as straight not have an advantage on his approach? that is the implication of your post.


2) You are only promoting half of the game, and I would say less than half of the understanding of the game. How will that help these beginners you are trying to attract grasp the full attraction that we have all fallen for?

[Paul_Turner]

PGA at Medinah:  soft and long didn't appear to make much difference to scoring.

[Adam Clayman]

F, F & F. Well Done!

Pat (and others) hasn't interfaced with approaches for a long time.

[Aaron Katz]

I've also got to disagree with the P. Mucci's argument (which I suspect he doesn't actually believe).  The argument that the "low drawer" shouldn't be longer than the "high fader" who carries the ball further has no objective basis.  The point is simply that, in firm and fast conditions, certain ball flights are favored, whereas in soft conditions a different type of ball flight is favored.  

Further, to the extent the low drawer is hitting it past the hazards in firm and fast conditions, it is because he ball is accurate.  Because he is not carrying it over those hazards, an offline shot will run into those hazards/rough, compromising both length and position severely.  

Finally, the argument for firm and fast in the fairways -- on many courses at least -- is the same for firm and fast on the greens and the approaches:  It brings the intended slopes and angles into play, allowing for more creativity.  Take a hole like the 10th at Augusta, for instance.  In firm conditions, a draw down the left side gets 50 or 60 yards of roll, while a blocked drive bounds away from the green and leaves an approach from an impossible angle.  In soft conditions, there will be only a minor difference between the draw and the blocked shot.  That's simply not how the hole was intended to play, and it certainly is not as fun.

[Aaron Katz]

I do agree, however, that the hardest possible golf course would be one with narrow, soft fairways and firm and fast greens.  But that type of course is nothing less than tricked up.

[TEPaul]

Paul Turner:

Actually it's just the soft which doesn't make any difference to these really good players today. Short or ultra long, if you give them soft conditions "through the greens" and on greens they will pretty much kill any course today scorewise.

It's the firm and firm and fast that gets those good players and the courses that have provided that condition in the last few years and the results on them seem to be good proof of that. That they can't even score that well on a course like Westchester is beoming proof of something too.

The good news is so many more of them seem to be getting fascinated with the latter.

Believe it or not I think these tour pros have gotten to the point they actually want to be able to think more to do well. The US Open champion has said as much and how can any of them miss the fact that Tiger Woods this year has showed the world how to think better in some incredibly creative and strategic ways?

The worm is turning, there's no question of it, while guys like Patrick sit there arguing over useless minutae apparently to come up with dumb reasons not to do the right thing.  

[George Pazin]

Obviously one needs to have other adjoining factors when utilizing the F&F through the green tactic - fairway bunkers in play, balls directed very far off line, etc.

I might agree with Pat's friends approach if he were talking about a course like my home muni - wide open, with greens that don't necessarily favor approaches from one side or the other.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

When last I looked, approaches were still part of the fairway.

I'm keenly aware of the relationship between F&F and IMM.

But, you have to look at what's happened to the playing field.

It's been narrowed
It's been watered
It's had trees planted at the perimeter
It's had deep, dense rough at the perimeter.

I don't think you can look at F&F and IMM in a context which ignores the above.

Fairway width is an integral part of F&F and IMM.

You can't take a narrowed fairway, with thick rough lining both sides and make the LZ fast and firm.  It would become seme-unplayable  and the membership would undo the F&F portion while leaving the narrow fairways as is.

The issue of F&F and IMM must be blended in the context of the original architecture, not the modified, modernized architecture whereby fairways are 20 yards wide with dense rough and trees all about.

So, my good man, expand your thinking beyond solely packaging F&F with IMM.  It must be packaged with architectural revisions/restorations.

I'm just taking your terrific concept of the IMM and bringing it into the real world with the caveat that the architecture must accomodate the change, and where it doesn't, the architecture must be accomodated/restored.


Padraig Dooley,

The problem is that it's often NOT a contest between the two extremes, wherein, LUSH is the only other choice.

There are a few who prefer LUSH conditions.
They're into aesthetics, not the game of golf,
yet, they are a force to be dealt with at most clubs.

What I'm trying to get across is several points,

One is that clubs shouldn't knee jerk react to the distance problem by racing to embrace F&F without first doing many other things to their course architecturally, for if they do, there will be a back lash against F&F.

Second, there must be acceptance of the fact that increased distances have had a negative affect on the interfacing of the architecture and the golfer, and that something global needs to be done about it.

And thirdly, that preping a course with the intent to punish the long hitter will backfire and set back the movement toward F&F conditions.

That F&F, the IMM and the architecture must be looked at from a connective, intertwined perspective, and not as isolated factors unto themselves.

[Patrick_Mucci]

1) Why should the guy that can hit the ball 50 yards further than you and just as straight not have an advantage on his approach?

Because he's been able to circumvent the architecture meant to interface with his game.

If he had to face the same or similar features with equal or greater penalties for the same or narrower margins of error I would be OK with that.

However, when you begin to create defenses at the 350 yard mark, you now begin to penalize the lesser or marginal player on their second or third shots.

that is the implication of your post.

No, the implication is that he doesn't face equal or more difficult obstacles in the way of architectural features.
He's been given a free pass, vis a vis, high tech.

And, that's not what the architect, who created the field of play, intended.

[RDecker]

JES II,

My point isn't that the new golfer not have a complete experience or the option of playing the course at a harder level.  My thought was simply that if F&F is the only available conditions, then those first few rounds are going to be frustrating.  High end clubs can get away with it and certainly links type course that are designed to be play that way should be, but a typical american parkland course playing F&F can be a bear.

[Patrick_Mucci]

F&F conditions are completely independent of equipment.  Does does it matter if somebody plays with hickories or the latest and greatest spanners?  I too agree that rough isn't the answer except to offer variety on a few holes.  

However, you didn't mention angles.  If a chap hits it 300 and is out of position his shot can be just as difficult (maybe more so) as the guy who is further back, but in better position.


Boloney, or Bolagna, take your choice.

Flogging has dispelled that argument.

This is when the combination of of f&f and clever hazard placement (which also takes prevailing wind patterns into account) make all the difference.  

Like the Maginot Line, clever hazard placement is useless in the face of high tech and distance

If you are complaining about guys that hit it 300 and and are in position, well then I don't understand your beef.  That is skill and should be rewarded.

It's not skill, it's high tech.

Why shouldn't they face the same array of bunkers or hazards that other players face ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've also got to disagree with the P. Mucci's argument (which I suspect he doesn't actually believe).  

The argument that the "low drawer" shouldn't be longer than the "high fader" who carries the ball further has no objective basis.  

That's NOT the argument.

The point is simply that, in firm and fast conditions, certain ball flights are favored, whereas in soft conditions a different type of ball flight is favored.  

Further, to the extent the low drawer is hitting it past the hazards in firm and fast conditions, it is because he ball is accurate.  Because he is not carrying it over those hazards, an offline shot will run into those hazards/rough, compromising both length and position severely.

Not true,
Just because the golfer hits a ball with less than mortar like trajectory doesn't mean that he isn't carrying the hazards.  

Finally, the argument for firm and fast in the fairways -- on many courses at least -- is the same for firm and fast on the greens and the approaches:  It brings the intended slopes and angles into play, allowing for more creativity.

That's also not true.

The intended slopes have been narrowed with the advent of automated irrigation systems.

There is no prefered angles of attack with narrow fairways and modern clubs.

Take a hole like the 10th at Augusta, for instance.  In firm conditions, a draw down the left side gets 50 or 60 yards of roll, while a blocked drive bounds away from the green and leaves an approach from an impossible angle.  In soft conditions, there will be only a minor difference between the draw and the blocked shot.  That's simply not how the hole was intended to play, and it certainly is not as fun.

The prefered play is a draw down the right side, so that the steep slope will turbo boost the ball to the center of the fairway.  A draw down the left side will end up in the woods.

[Jason Topp]

I thought about starting a thread on this issue as well because of a couple of comments Mr. Ruddy made:

From:  Ruddy Counter Attacks:


Just one thing, the Fast and Firm issue has been mentioned.  We can go fast and firm as much as you like in just three days any Summer if we so choose .... then the complaints set in to the effect that it is unfair that the ball bounces into such deep bunkers, such deep rough and "perfect approaches" get punished.  It is impossible to please'm all all the time .... so I tend to please myself (which is a bit of an indulgence, but then I will live only once and I had better get on with it) knowing that many other people will share my taste for shots off grass rather than off bare sand.
It is not long ago that Horace Hutchinson advised the golfer with a naughty putter to get down on his hunkers "keeping the ball between you and the hole and select a particular daisy over which to putt!" try that daisy covered green, a great aid to putting, at your club and see how old ideas will be embraced, even the ideas of one of the greatest champions of them all.
It is not long ago, either, (maybe 40 years) since I lost a ball in mid-fairway at Portmarnock as the 2" canopy formed by a perfect carpet of daisies provided perfect camouflage.


From "A positive discussion about the European Club:

(d) Conditioning.  Ireland suffered a major drought in 1995 and all links were set-back severely. We installed fairway irrigation after that and have chosen to stay green. We have a policy of keeping short and fast to the extent that visitors even from finer clubs worldwide have praised what they find in terms "your fairways are as good as/better than our greens at home." Of course, if we wish, we can go as brown as one might wish in three days at anytime March-November.  Meantime, it is nice to avoid the worst traumas of deep divot holes, which will not grow back in drought conditions, and weeds which thrive when grasses are stressed.

I would love to hear Mr. Ruddy weigh in on this thread.

[Adam Clayman]

How does Pat's argument stand up to Tom Doak's assertion that short grass is his favorite hazard?

The interface is constant and optimal when F,F & F.

[TEPaul]

"I'm just taking your terrific concept of the IMM and bringing it into the real world with the caveat that the architecture must accomodate the change, and where it doesn't, the architecture must be accomodated/restored."

Are you? Well, apparently you've failed to read what I've written for the last five years regarding the IMM on here and how it's dependent on the architecture of any golf course. The etymology of the IMM is that maintenance practices nee to MELD with the arhitecture and design intent of any course and to design the correct maintenance for any golf course you must first understand what any course's design intent is and how that may differ from other golf courses. The point is courses vary vastly in type and style and design intent.

It's course specific Pat---that is the first and primary purpose of the IMM, but I wouldn't expect you to know what I mean by that despite the fact the back pages of this website are riddled with the explanation over and over and over again.

Amazing!

[peter_mcknight]

There has to be a case to support fast and firm conditions so that we have to learn how to play different shots under different and varying conditions.  Golf is about imagination on shotmaking and today's conditions, generally speaking, favor the bombs away and fly the wedge, 9 iron 2d shot straight at the pin.  With Hoylake so fast and firm, there can be no question that Tiger's performance there was so vastly superior and more enjoyable to watch than his coronation at the USPGA at Medinah.

[LBaker]

In my opinion, tees, fairways, greens especially approaches have to be firm and fast to be considered F&F golf course.  Having firm greens and wet fairways/tees/approaches is so common and that shouldn't be considered a F&F course.  

1. Most approaches are usually cut lower than fairways.  

2. If you are managing a F&F course, your approaches are getting less  water than your greens.  The sprinkler heads around the greens are meant to cover some of the approach.  F&F management relies on hand watering on your greens and approaches.  The sprinklers around the green are primarily used for syringing.  This causes the approach to get inconsistant amounts of water. When designing a irrigation system, the last fairway head before the approach is strategiclly placed to share the watering responsibility with the green heads.    

Approaches are very difficult to manage on a F&F course.  They make or break the success of a firm green.  

[Kyle Harris]

Lindsey,

One of the things I've noticed down here in Florida is the care taken in maintaining approaches as compared to fairways. Having already talked to two supers, I've asked both if given the choice between mowing fairways OR approaches, they'd both take approaches. I am inclined to agree. You need to visit.

Pat,

The case against F&F is an architectural case. Is there not a design school out there that would be "ideal" in wetter and softer conditions?

Want to build a course that rewards the high and soft shot? Make a lot of carry hazards and soften the place up.

Now, whether or not one considers that a test of skill, I think, is the more important question. It all boils down to "what should an expert golfer be expected to do?"

[LBaker]

I have worked on both wet and F&F courses.  In my opinion, the firm course encourages high handicappers to think more about golf shots rather than think about the 19th hole after the round.  I have also noticed the low handicapper taking more time when during club selection.

F&F conditions promote the game of golf not demote it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

The smart player can combine skill (without using smashmouth tactics) and intelligence to overcome clever design and the rest of the field.  Watch the dvd of Tiger at Hoylake for evidence.  I think a guy called Jack did this same technique at Muirfiled.  In fact, Tiger has practiced this game of patience at TOC.  Perhaps the design and setup of the courses allowed players to sideline smashmouth golf for a week.

Sean,

Have you been reading this thread with any degree of comprehension ?

To frame your response in the sole context of the games of Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods is ....... absurd.

You write that flogging has dispelled the the argument of f&f combined with clever hazards.  Just to be sure, I am labelling hazards anything from from water, to rough, to hillocks, etc.


Rough is not a hazard.  

I think the there are plenty of Opens that can be used as examples of combining clever hazards with f&f conditions to create entertaining golf at the highest levels.  

What does an Open have to do with local golf clubs ?

And would you cite examples of Opens where "clever hazards" were combined with F&F conditions ?  

Could you also define "clever hazards" and tell us what differentiates them from dumb hazards ?

I understand this is only an opinion, but there it is.  BTW The Maginot Line was not clever because it didn't work.

Sean, have someone read this thread to you because you obviously DON"T understand it.

Like the Maginot Line fairway bunkering has become useless.

Bad analogy.

It's a perfect analogy, you just don't understand it.

The guy who can hit it 300 yards and in position does face the same hazards as anybody else.  

No he doesn't.
Bunkers/features at 250 yards are meaningless to him

The difference is he can deal with them better.  

When he flies the bunkers at 250 yards, he doesn't deal with them, he ignores them, they have no meaning, no significance in the play of the hole

I know you think that if a guy hits it 300 yards it is down to modern technology.  

You may be right, but I don't think so because guys have been hitting the ball 300 yards for a very long time.

What's your definition of a very long time ?

And, would you name the players who have been hitting the ball 300 yards for a very long time ?

I played with a number of PGA Tour pros over the years and until recently, NONE of them carried the ball 300 yards, and few if any of them, ever hit the ball 300 yards under normal conditions.

What experience have you had with PGA Tour Pros

While I understand your disappointment that courses don't play the way they did in the 70s & 80s, that is a phenomena that has magically been going on since the game was invented.

That's not the issue.
Do you have any clue with respect to what this thread is about ?

We can either look forward for solutions or live in the past.  


Have someone read and interpret posts for you, you just don't get it.

Perhaps there isn't a solution.  What I know is that the game should not solely be measured by its best players.  The future of golf doesn't lie with them and never has.  

This thread isn't about the best players, it's about local clubs.

Please, designate someone to read, interpret and post for you.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()