News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2006, 07:12:09 PM »
"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."

Patrick:

That is absolutely true and I couldn't agree more.

It's one thing to thoughtlessly promote firm and fast conditions to any other club who is presently over-irrigated and chemical dependent and another thing altogether to be honest and explain to them that their transition period, even if done properly, may take a few years to transition their agronomy. In those transition years they are going to get some turf loss anyway in a proper transition but if they don't understand that transition period and don't understand how to transiton properly they sure could wipe out their agronomy. At least that's what my numerous super friends who've done it say.

Grass is a living thing and if its been through years over-irrigation and chemical dependency it has short roots and it's dependent on all kinds of chemical remediation. You need to give it time to establish deep roots and that could take a lot of compaction and thatch remediation too.

If your grass has been super over-irrigated and chemical dependent for years look at it as a real bad alchohlic and drug addict who needs to go to a dry out place for maybe a couple of years to learn how it feels to be clean again. Do you think you can take some super alcoholic/drug addict grass and just tell it to quit booz and drugs instantly? Of course not, it will get the DTs real bad and might just turn toes up and crap out on you totally. ;)

Have you guys every seen golf agronomy with a real bad case of the DTs? I hope not and I guarantee you that you never want to.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2006, 07:16:10 PM by TEPaul »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2006, 09:46:54 PM »
Lindsey & TEPaul,

I think it's safe to say that when going from L&G to F&F that things will get worse before they get better, and that it's going to take time.

If a club has unrealistic expectations and/or is uneducated, they'll bail before the goal can be achieved, and the effort will have been for naught.

The timing of the conversion is also dependent upon Mother Nature and can take longer than 3 years.

GCGC is an example of Mother Nature delaying meaningful progress and extending the conversion period.

TEPaul,

Harping on going to F&F without doing the due diligence can be disastrous.  This is not a project to be undertaken without all of the component pieces.

It should be a well planned effort with the appropriate funding.

Lindsey,

If fairway acreage is increased to accomodate F&F, the operating maintainance budget for the fairways will increase proportionately.   And, the capital costs for the realignment of the irrigation system will never be recovered.

But, the final product should be well worth the effort and expense

TEPaul

Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2006, 10:03:08 PM »
Patrick:

Is it really necessary for you to just repeat practically verbatim everything I've just said within a moments of me saying it, as if you just thought of it?

My God man, the class heard it all in the classroom, there's no real need for you to report it and repeat it all again as soon as you get out in the hall.

:)

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2006, 05:22:57 PM »
TEPaul,

The only reason that I would repeat anything you said would be because you've forgotten that you got the idea from me in the first place.

In this case, the issue needed repeating.

Too many think going to F&F is a simple task.

It's far more complicated and can be a precarious journey, doomed to failure if the proper planning isn't undertaken.

It's not as simple as just shutting off the water.

Member reaction to the conditions experienced during the transition will not be favorable and one must be prepared for that as well.

Anyone that's seen the transition in and out of the overseeding process should understand the transition from L&G to F&F.

Most want F&F, few understand the process of achieving F&F.

The jist of this thread is that a club must be knowledgeable, prepared and funded in order to insure that this transitional project will be successful, and that failure to provide ALL of the above will probably doom the project for the foreseeable future.

Some should learn that. if it was so easy, why haven't more clubs embarked upon the journey ?

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2006, 12:12:05 AM »
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.


They went around it, but it was more like Lon Hinkle in that US Open in the late 70s playing into a different fairway.  The French thought they only had to defend themselves from Germany, not from friendly countries that the Germans might conquer to go around the Maginot.  If only the French had planted a really big tree to block that route... ;)
My hovercraft is full of eels.

TEPaul

Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2006, 06:43:44 AM »
Patrick:

Regarding your post #56, yes that's all true and I've been saying that on here for a few years now. The back pages are filled with that advice. Perhaps you read it and then forgot you did. How many times and for how long have you heard me say the thing to do is for clubs to set playability goals with firm and fast, get together with their supers and discuss those playability goals and how they can be achieved agronomically? How many times have you heard me say the supers responses should be one of these; "Can do, no can do and here's why or can do and here's what it might cost".?

An IMM is basically a goal and the thing to stress is it may not be so quick and easy to do. Grass transitoning over from years of over-irrigation and chemical dependcy takes time, there may need to be remediation from compaction, soil makeup etc. That can take time and money and even if it's done correctly the grass needs time to tranistion, to grow deeper roots, to become stronger and more durable, and in the transition period there will be some turf loss (the weaker grasses will die off and be replaced by the stronger grass---it's basically a Darwinian process).

Clubs need to know that going in or their expectations will be completely mismanaged. They need to do their homework, go talk to clubs who've done it before them and then they need to inform their membership of what the goal is and what to expect given various circumstances in trying to get there.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case AGAINST firm & fast conditions
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2006, 07:58:54 AM »
Here's one...

With F&F nobody will know where to put the cart paths.

Not to mention all the ill-conceived paths already placed.

Of course I'm playing Mucci advocate. ;)
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back