[TEPaul]

"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."

Kyle:

That was the whole first purpose of my IMM.

The point of it was first to make it clear that at this point in the history and evolution of golf course architecture there are all kinds of different types and styles of courses and architecture out there. We know that some modern aerial designed courses aren't much like some of the old open front courses of the old days. The reason why that is should be as obvious as the fact that it is so.

I first came up with the term Maintenance MELD to make it more clear that different types and styles of courses inherently needed to be maintained differently.

The only term that was used to describe the maintenance of a golf course was "good condition" and in my opinion that was in no way descriptive enough of what varying types of maintenance practices should be for the various types and styles of courses out there. The point was they needed to be different instead of the "one size fits all" philosophy known as "good condition"---which generally meant soft, lush green and immaculate.

Consequently, when it comes to firm and fast some of the old style courses could probably have their green surfaces maintained a little firmer than modern aerial designed courses because the old style course generally has more bounce in options than the modern aerial designed courses do, and so inherently some modern aerial designed courses need more receptive greens than some of the older style courses.

 

[Chris Kane]

Patrick Mucci, most PGA Tour professionals don't carry the ball 300 yards - to make a point based on the notion that most advanced players can do so is ludicrous.

A friend of mine who plays professionally was fitted at the Titleist testing centre in California late last year, and his carry with the driver was 274 yards - the average for Titleist staff players on the PGA Tour at that time.  I have trouble believing that the figure has increased signficantly since.

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with TEP that the IMM is course specific, and no IMM is universal to the way the game should be presented on diverse styles of courses.

When deciding IMMs for courses built many years ago, pre- I&B technology, pre- maintenance equipment technology, pre- irrigation technology, we must strive to interpret what the archie would like presented.  We must compromise or cope with seasonality, and we must take care that time alters growth of things like trees, and even evolution of soil functions, all effecting either the strategic or performance of ball and ground relationships which ultimately alter the archie's original intent.

To that end, we must also consider that some archies, past and present, DON'T EVEN PLAY OR UNDERSTAND THE GAME, to varying extents!    IMHO.

There are archies out there who past and present designed golf courses like parks and tea gardens, never really giving a thought to the ideals of the game.  I doubt some of them even thought of the functionality of firm and fast.  They just designed for pretty, sizzle to sell communities, and calander shots of their landscape.

Take all the best archies working today.  They all either understand the game, its craddle, and/or play it reasonably well.  I can't think of any I respect that don't have an IMM that leans towards F&F and don't incorporate F&F features and strategy foremost when designing approaches and surrounds.  I can't think of any great modern designs that don't lean towards more width in LZs and elasticity in teeing grounds, that bring bunkers and hazards into the equation, with F&F conditions likely being available most of the time, except extreem wet and or overseeding seasons.

I think that going forward, any archie worth his salt ought to submit a hole by hole analysis of his intent of how the course should be presented in an IMM, and describe and specify things like placement of hazards, mowing patterns, irrigation, and ball and ground functionality, for the high handi and low man.  Then, the archie ought to also discuss the intent when the course will experience 'less than IMM' with due consideration to the realities of seasonality, southern summer turf dormancy and needs to overseed, wet and drought response realities, and even drainage performance.

That may be a tall order for an archie to submit all that to the 'as built' documents, or just as an accompanying narrative to the turn-key grand opening, for those future supers, owners, committeemen to have as a guide.  But, it sure would go a long way towards taking out the speculations of what are and should be IMMs, as being discussed above, IMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Rather than go through each dopey reply you made I will simply state the following:

If you believe

1. the equipmant players use is related to the conditions of a course

What would you call Mickelson's use of two drivers ?

2. that there is no relationship between f&f and the placement of hazards

There isn't in the context of today's courses

3. that every player does not face the same course and therefore the same hazards

How can a player face hazards not in play for his game ?
Do you suggest that they tee off with 4-irons just to bring the hazards back into play?

4. that players (of any class) cannot do well by giving up yardage for position

Flogging proves you wrong

5. and finally, that the Maginot Line is a good analogy for golf today

It is

than I don't understand what you are on about.  Don't worry, because if you do believe the five points above than I don't really care what your are trying to say.  

No, you just don't understand it.

BTW  The Maginot Line wasn't clever because like a strategic a thinking player rather than a smashmouth player, the Germans went around it - not over it.

Perhaps you've never heard of the Luftwaffe, the impact of the Stuka and the effect of the German paratroopers.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

That was no failure on my part, it was intentional.

The etymology of the IMM is that maintenance practices need to MELD with the architecture 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.


You can repeat it until the cows come home, and for that matter, long after the cows have come home, it ignores the reality of the transitional process.

The REALITY is that few, if any courses are willing to embark upon a total retooling of their architecture prior to attempting to achieve F&F conditions.  And, that is a necessary step, required in order to achieve the IMM.

Let's look at what has to happen in order to achieve F&F in the context of the IMM.

First, the fairways that have been narrowed over the years have to be returned to their intended widths.

But, it's not as simple as just altering the mowing patterns.

The irrigation system has to be revamped, reconfigured to accomodate the altered fairway lines, and, that's a major project that's also expensive.

So, please don't tell me that I don't understand the nuts and bolts of getting from Point A to Point B, because at many, if not all clubs, it's not a simple straight line/process.

And, the problem is, that it took years to go from wide, firm fairways to today's conditions, and that almost imperceptable metamorphasis went unchallenged, financially and politically.

But, to undertake a project which seeks to return to F&F in the context of the IMM requires radical cultural changes and FUNDS.

In the face of that reality, clubs seek to shortcut the process, choosing to not spend substantive dollars, they retain existing irrigation systems, rough lines, etc., etc..  And, in doing so, they probably doom the project to failure in the long run, for without wide fairways and the appropriate integration of the features, along with refigured irrigation systems, they won't achieve Nirvana.

The ultimate goal will be frustrated because the effort, while well intended, is attempted in a partial or incompleted fashion.

The ideal time to embark upon this project would be during a restoration/renovation, but, for a club not undertaking a major project on their golf course, this is more than a challenging dilema, it's a very difficult sell.

And, if the club doesn't do it right from the start, chances are they'll revert to where they were.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, I'd like to hear from a super or better, and irrigation specialist from the academic agronomy side about the requirements to maintain F&F in outward areas (who is not a toro or rainbird salesman and isn't out to just sell more heads and pipe)

Wouldn't an extra man on the crew, and quick couplers (that probably already exist) to hand water in wide hot spots, offer the F&F conditions in the outward LZs of FWs, and the ideal is to water less in the surrounds and approaches, not more. ( and extra man on 35000 rounds is about a buck to a buck and a half per round)  The point isn't about wider irrigation head coverage, it is about less.  Yes, I get the ideal of more sprinkler control with more heads and all.  But, an extra 250K in heads and pipe and their maintenance is a number of years worth of extra man watering, and then you have to rebuy new heads and pipes eventually, anyway.  And, baby has to eat, so hire the guy.  

And, keeping cart traffic away from approaches, if not discouraged to promote walking.  And, walking in and of itself is sort of a symbiotic boon to promoting f&f, because you don't want to slop through pudding approaches.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, I'd like to hear from a super or better, and irrigation specialist from the academic agronomy side about the requirements to maintain F&F in outward areas (who is not a toro or rainbird salesman and isn't out to just sell more heads and pipe)

What would you like to hear from them ?

RJ, this is a simple issue, just as plain as the shirts on Sarge's back.

You can't just cut back your roughs and ignore the new irrigation requirements that will be ongoing.

You have to reconfigure your system.

And, at most courses you'd probably have to cut down a great number of trees, for after irrigation systems initiated the narrowing process, tree plantings exacerbated it.

This is a big project, financially and culturally.

Wouldn't an extra man on the crew, and quick couplers (that probably already exist) to hand water in wide hot spots, offer the F&F conditions in the outward LZs of FWs, and the ideal is to water less in the surrounds and approaches, not more. ( and extra man on 35000 rounds is about a buck to a buck and a half per round)  The point isn't about wider irrigation head coverage, it is about less.  Yes, I get the ideal of more sprinkler control with more heads and all.  But, an extra 250K in heads and pipe and their maintenance is a number of years worth of extra man watering, and then you have to rebuy new heads and pipes eventually, anyway.  And, baby has to eat, so hire the guy.  


RJ, when you take fairway widths from 20 or so, to 40+ yards, you're not talking about an inconsequential task that one fellow could undertake.  And, when is he going to do this work in the summer, when the golfers are playing ?

It's not that simple.
It requires a major effort and expenditure on the part of the club and staff.

And, keeping cart traffic away from approaches, if not discouraged to promote walking.  And, walking in and of itself is sort of a symbiotic boon to promoting f&f, because you don't want to slop through pudding approaches.

Most clubs already prohibit cart traffic from approaches.

Cart revenues are important to many clubs.
And, many clubs don't have caddy programs, and as such, I don't think F&F in and of itself will promote walking.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, haven't you heard of the night irrigation man?  That is when.  

McCollough and Poulan makes nice FW width enhancers.

Adding an extention and a quick coupler isn't major reconfiguration.

forget taking them 20 to 40... take em, 35-65 in the LZs and they don't need to be uniformly green, just healthy and strong rooted.

I'd still like to hear from an expert.  A fellow like Scott Anderson would do nicely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, haven't you heard of the night irrigation man?  That is when.  

McCollough and Poulan makes nice FW width enhancers.

Adding an extention and a quick coupler isn't major reconfiguration.

forget taking them 20 to 40... take em, 35-65 in the LZs and they don't need to be uniformly green, just healthy and strong rooted.

I'd still like to hear from an expert.  A fellow like Scott Anderson would do nicely.

RJ,

You speak of LZ's as if they're limited to small areas.  You seem to forget about multiple tees and the diverse abilities of golfers.

And you seem to speak in the context of adding width solely at the LZ, when the entire fairway should be widened as orginally configured.

Increasing your fairway acreage under management by 25 %, 33 % or 50 % will take alot more than some guy watering at night.

And, clubs don't spend millions on state of the art irrigation systems to hire a night man to water the golf course.

At night, in the dark, how would the man know where and how much to water ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick, you duffus, to get really good F&F and not much browning out these high budget clubs don't send people out to water at night, they send them out to SYRINGE during the day. Furtermore, syringing really isn't even watering in the sense of irrigating grass.

Trying to teach you about architecture and maintenance is a never-ending job.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You have an advantage over RJDaley,

You have your seeing eye dog, Coorshaw, to guide you for night watering or night putting, but, not with the Dean's daughter.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You will not find me out night watering or night putting with Coorshaw or the Dean's daughter or anybody else.

The fact is I have now accumulated so much knowledge about golf and architecture and maintenance practices my head has gotten extremely heavy and I pretty much need to either sit down or lie down most of the time.

BTW, how was your night in the monkey cage at the Philadelphia Zoo? It's pretty amazing how smart those little buggers are, isn't it? At least they know the difference between night watering and daytime syringing. I hope you learned something from them over night, at least like how to get naked and get down!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

In the company of 100+ 8 year olds and 100+ adults, in the confines of the old giraffe barn, for a nightime sleep over, I learned that a good nights sleep was dependent upon my ingenuity to seperate myself from the herd.

Rumor has it that the snoring was so loud that the animals were complaining.

I was told to bring styrafoam earplugs to counter the noise, but, I forgot.
I was told to eat before arriving, but, I forgot.
I was told not to go, but, I couldn't.

I did manage to get a bite to eat and a good night's sleep, but, it took more than your swelled head and Coorshaw could imagine.

I did manage to save the day for more than a few parents when the kids came to the Big Cat exhibit.

The male lion had mounted the lioness and the kids asked what they were doing.  The tour guides were silent.
I informed them that one lion was stuck in the mud/hole and that the other was trying to push them out, and that it was time to go see the tigers.

The relief on the parent's faces was ....... "priceless"

I won't be returning in the near future  

[Joe Hancock]

The relief on the parent's faces was ....... "priceless"

I won't be returning in the near future  

Pat,

It seems you were pondering the lion's activity for some time to be able to give that response. Perhaps the look on your face was..."jealous"?

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

No, Like my retorts to TEPaul, my words were instantaneous.
However, when it began to look like a menage a trois was in the wind, my mind did wander a bit.

To give you an idea about the rigors of the trip, my son slept on the drive home as did his two friends.

Last night, I was tired, went to bed at 9:30, and, I was having a GREAT sleep, when, in the middle of the night,  I turned over, near the edge of the bed, only to have my German Shephard wake me up by licking my face.  I did not have kind words for him.

The kids had a great time, but, I won't be returning anytime soon.

I forgot to mention, what also made sleeping difficult in the Girraffe barn, with 200+ people, wasn't that some lights were on all night, it was the endless line of kids, making noise and talking as they were going to the bathroom all night long.

I"m glad I missed that part, which was relayed to me by some bleary eyed parents.

[JESII]

Pat,

Your "case against firm and fast" seems to have one leg....dollars and cents. Did I miss any other positions? Does long-term turf health gain any consideration? I have not yet spoken to, or read on here, a superintendent state that this approach when done properly requires less nurturing, and therefore dollars.

I think the case against F & F is weak. The trouble is, we are starting at the other end of the spectrum which complicates the sale to a membership.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Your "case against firm and fast" seems to have one leg....dollars and cents.

Not so

Did I miss any other positions?

Yes, the critical ones.
You can't just turn off the water.
Mowing lines have to be realigned and trees have to be removed so that the corridors of play can be widened.

Without doing this the venture will fail.

You can't retain today's narrow fairways and revert to F&F in a one dimensional effort, the other factors must be part of the project.

However, those elements require money.
Don't ever forget that absent money, you can't embark upon any meaningful project, irrespective of its merits.

Does long-term turf health gain any consideration?

No, and that's really PR BS.
The fairway turf at many clubs has been spectacular for many, many years.

I have not yet spoken to, or read on here, a superintendent state that this approach when done properly requires less nurturing, and therefore dollars.

Probably because few have embarked upon it.

You just can't isolate the issue to H2O.

You have to widen your playing corridors if F&F is to succeed, and to do it properly, to insure success, requires $.

I think the case against F & F is weak.

If it's so weak why are F&F so rare ?

The trouble is, we are starting at the other end of the spectrum which complicates the sale to a membership.

But, that's where we are.
And to get to where we want to be will require effort, education, change and money, which aren't easy to extract from memberships.

[JESII]

Pat,

Please forgive me for your contradictions, but where in that post did you disprove my assertion that your "case against firm and fast" is simply a dollars and cents argument?

The quotes below are from you in that post #44.

Don't ever forget that absent money, you can't embark upon any meaningful project, irrespective of its merits.

You have to widen your playing corridors if F&F is to succeed, and to do it properly, to insure success, requires $.

And to get to where we want to be will require effort, education, change and money, which aren't easy to extract from memberships.

I agree with you on all the architectural changes that likely should be made to tie in a firm and fast maintenance presentation. I think fairway widths, and the correspnding maintenance costs, can be the last thing changed. So long as the rough where the balls will now run to is kept short you can begin the tree removal process fairly inexpensively and continue trying to get some bounce in the fairways and go from there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Please forgive me for your contradictions, but where in that post did you disprove my assertion that your "case against firm and fast" is simply a dollars and cents argument?

I've proofed it, over and over again, but, I'll prove it for you one more time.

First, it represents change.
People inherently resist change.
Second, it requires a cultural change
Cultures are difficult to change.

Mowing the rough lower isn't something you just do by resetting your blade heights.  It has to be done at one of two times of year.  And, the lower the height of maintained grass, the more it has to be mowed, the more it has to be mowed, the more it costs.

There's no such thing as a low cost tree removal project.

In order to achieve F&F on the golf course,
If fairways and corridors of play have to be widened, you can't widen them over the next 10 years, they have to be widened universally and concurrently, not sequentially, and that costs money.

MONEY is tied into virtually every aspect of golf course design, maintainance and changes.

The quotes below are from you in that post #44.

Don't ever forget that absent money, you can't embark upon any meaningful project, irrespective of its merits.

That's true

You have to widen your playing corridors if F&F is to succeed, and to do it properly, to insure success, requires $.

That's also true

And to get to where we want to be will require effort, education, change and money, which aren't easy to extract from memberships.

That too, is also true

I agree with you on all the architectural changes that likely should be made to tie in a firm and fast maintenance presentation.

I think fairway widths, and the correspnding maintenance costs, can be the last thing changed.

No, they have to be amongst the first things changed if you're going to do it right.  And, you want to do it right, for if you do it wrong, the project will fail within a short time

So long as the rough where the balls will now run to is kept short you can begin the tree removal process fairly inexpensively and continue trying to get some bounce in the fairways and go from there.

So, when the members balls run through the short rough, only to be blocked out by trees, they'll appreciate and understand your efforts to achieve F&F conditions ?   ?  ?

This is what I'm trying to tell you.
You can't fragment the project, proceeding with one element while abandoning or postponing the others.

It's a multifaceted approach that must be used, not a half assed, underfinanced approach.

[TEPaul]

"I did manage to save the day for more than a few parents when the kids came to the Big Cat exhibit.

The male lion had mounted the lioness and the kids asked what they were doing.  The tour guides were silent.
I informed them that one lion was stuck in the mud/hole and that the other was trying to push them out, and that it was time to go see the tigers.

The relief on the parent's faces was ....... "priceless""

Patrick, my good man, perhaps the general relief on the faces of the parents was priceless but now you have about 100+ 8 year olds up in North Jersey all basically saying this to each other;

"Do you believe that idiot Mr Mucci saying that the lion was trying to push the lioness out of the mud when we could all see as clear as the noon day sun that he was just F.... her brains out?"

[JESII]

Pat,

I just re-read your initial post for this thread and frankly I don't see anything in your conclusion that makes "the case against firm and fast conditions". You want people to interface with architecture more often. That's fine, as you remark it's an I & B issue. Ground firmness obviously does not help one carry a bunker that he was supposed to try to hit it around, right?

The rest of your posts on this thread are defending the status quo with respect to firmness because the transition process would be to expensive to sell to the membership. If that's not your only defense of S & G (soft & green)[/color] tell me something; if the process of widening fairways, removing trees and firming up the golf course were free would any club not go for it? I know you'll say yes and come up with some convoluted reasoning, but even still you must admit the percentage would be incredibly low.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I just re-read your initial post for this thread and frankly I don't see anything in your conclusion that makes "the case against firm and fast conditions".

If you've read all of my posts and still feel the same way, then you're viewing the gist of my thread in the wrong context and have been misled by the title.

You want people to interface with architecture more often.

That's fine, as you remark it's an I & B issue. Ground firmness obviously does not help one carry a bunker that he was supposed to try to hit it around, right?

Right, but, it helps him to get closer to it, which makes hitting over it easier.

The rest of your posts on this thread are defending the status quo with respect to firmness because the transition process would be to expensive to sell to the membership.

It's not a case of defending, it's a case of saying don't rush in and get blown out for not doing it properly in the first place.

If that's not your only defense of S & G (soft & green)[/color] tell me something; if the process of widening fairways, removing trees and firming up the golf course were free would any club not go for it?

It's not that simple.
Didn't you read the part about change and culture ?

I know you'll say yes and come up with some convoluted reasoning, but even still you must admit the percentage would be incredibly low.

I'll guarantee you that if the process were free, after the first club in any area did it, there'd be a rush to get it done by all of the other clubs

[JESII]

Pat,

Your last sentence there just seems to re-inforce my remarks that your position is based solely on dollars and cents.

Get in and do it right....which obviously will cost money....which obviously will cause a major roadblock at many (most, if not all) clubs.

I'll be honest with you, I really question this culture you mention as a deterent to this type of work. The two roadblocks are education and money. Few will vote affirmatively if they cannot understand the benefits. If they do understand them, with this type of initiative, they will support "improvements" to their course.

And another thing you mentioned earlier....do you really believe that ongoing maintenance savings is likely "PR BS"? I do not.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Your last sentence there just seems to re-inforce my remarks that your position is based solely on dollars and cents.

Not solely, but, it's certainly a factor that can't be ignored.

Get in and do it right....which obviously will cost money....which obviously will cause a major roadblock at many (most, if not all) clubs.

You can't ignore or discount the importance of cost, it's an integral part of any successful program.

I'll be honest with you, I really question this culture you mention as a deterent to this type of work. The two roadblocks are education and money. Few will vote affirmatively if they cannot understand the benefits. If they do understand them, with this type of initiative, they will support "improvements" to their course.

Only if the cost is tolerable

And another thing you mentioned earlier....do you really believe that ongoing maintenance savings is likely "PR BS"? I do not.

Yes, I do.

Having to maintain 50 %, 75 % or 100 % more in fairway is expensive, as is the cost to transition to wider fairways, including retro-fitting the irrigation systems.  Savings, if there are any, won't be in the near future.

[LBaker]

Pat & Sulli, I'm sure you both know that to turn a soft and green course into a F&F course, the transition is a minimum of three years.  The main factor that plays into the success of the transition are % of poa to bent on tees/fairways and greens.  It's a lot faster to do it with a higher % of bent.  

Once the three years are up, the fourth season you will find a dramatic decrease in the labor budget.  It's spending money now to save in the future.  There is a club near HVCC that has gone through the conversion and there was an increase in labor the first couple of years.  Now, the labor during the growing season is gradually lowering.  

We must try to keep it simple so memberships will go this direction instead of fighting it.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()