[Chip Gaskins]

On the drive from Ballyneal to the Denver airport we had long discussion about firm and fast courses and are there really any courses in America where the player has to land the ball well short of the green to get it close to the hole on the majority of holes. 

We defined firm and fast as having to land the ball 10-20 yards in front of the green to get the ball to stop pin high.  A course where if you land your approach in the middle of the green you would be chipping back 70-80% of the time.  I am not talking a few holes, I am talking about the majority of holes your approach needs to land in front of the green to get close to the pin.

We thought back to rounds at Turnberry, Portmarnock, St. Andrews, etc  where you get your yardage and then subtract from it.

Are there any courses in America that really play this way.  The closest I have played would be Ballyneal.

Maidstone - A few holes maybe

Sand Hills - No, the majority of the greens are pushed up too much.

Pinehurst #2 - Not really, the shape and speed of those greens would make this almost impossible.

NGLA - Not too many (#10 & #11)

Prairie Dunes - No

Oakmont - a few holes (#1, #10, #12)

Bandon Trails - A few holes (#3,#9, #12), but not that many.

Chechessee Creek, Shinnecock, Hidden Creek, Fishers Island, Seminole, Yeamans Hall, are all possibilities, I just haven't played them to know.


Long story short, Firm and Fast in the UK is different than Firm and Fast in America.  The key word in this is "majority" of the holes, not a few.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

I don't think even Ballyneal plays that way.  I sure don't recall being REQUIRED to land the balls short of any greens... and when I was there they said it was as firm and fast as it ever has been.

Sand Hills played a lot firmer and faster than Ballyneal; but you're right, running it up would not be the shot on the majority of holes.  Come to think of it though, Ballyneal has its share of raised greens also...

I wonder though... is it even the case at the UK courses you mention?  Most have huge greens... you'd land short only to front pins.  And I have to say, I've played pretty much all the great courses there are to play over there, and I have never ever played firmer and faster conditions than...

WILD HORSE GC
Gothenburg, NE

That's the American standard for firm and fast, I think; that is, outside of courses let go to brown due to lack of water available.

TH

[Tom_Doak]

Chip:

It all depends on conditions, I guess, but I have to say that even when I've played true links courses in the UK recently, I don't think many of them would pass your test of having to land the ball 10+ yards short of the green more than half the time.  On downwind holes, yes, but only on downwind holes.

I would agree with Tom Huckaby that Wild Horse probably required this more than any American course on the day I played it (25-mph wind).  Their greens are pretty small so flying the ball onto the green seldom works well.

Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes are both firm and fast by anybody's standards ... but Bandon's greens were built big so that people could fly the ball onto the green.

[Carl Nichols]

I played Cuscowilla during the drought and there were a few holes where the best play was to land the ball in front -- but that was certainly not a majority of the holes, and it was a drought.  

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Personally, I don't think any golf course should have greens that are set up SO firm and fast that all golfers HAVE TO land the ball 10-20 yards before a green.

The reasons for this should be fairly obvious---basically not all holes on most all golf courses have this kind of open approach.

The ideal to me (Ideal Maintenance Meld--IMM) is where there is an equilibrium between the effectiveness of really good aerial shots (generally from fairway height) and bounce-in or run-in shots.

Obviously, this kind of balance or equilibrium if established correctly with F&F plays directly into the heart of strategic considerations and multiple options from tees all the way to greens!

If green surfaces are so firm that no aerial shot from anywhere will stop on them a very important strategic ramification has been shut down. On the other hand if greens are so receptive that good players will use aerial shots from anywhere all day long then the ground game bounce-in option looses it's essentially strategic effectiveness.

There needs to be an equilibrium or balance between the ground game approach option and the aerial option to a green surface and remarkably that equilibrium or balance can be very IDENTIFIABLE!

Basically I call that equilibrium or balance the IMM.

[Chip Gaskins]

Tom & Tom -

I completely forgot about Wild Horse, you guys are correct, that is probably the best example I have played in America.

As for the into the wind holes on the UK links courses....my point was that the courses still allowed (if not called) for a 120 yard 6 iron that bumped along the ground and runs on to the green versus a punch wedge.  Maybe its semantics on my part.

[Tom Huckaby]

Chip:

Gotcha.  And I know what you're getting at.  But I still think that wind is gonna drive this as much or more than conditions.  But you're right, in general there are far more courses in the UK that even ALLOW for the shot you mention.  But then again they tend to play in a lot more wind... and if you think about places here where it's windy (like Bandon), well those tend to allow for the punchy 6iron also.

TH

[JESII]

Chip,

Is your question about the maintenance practice? Or is it about the options built into the architecture?

Initially you seemed to be looking for US courses maintained firm enough to dictate bouncing the ball in, but you're last sentence confused me.

If it's about firmness, I'd put Huntingdon Valley up against anywhere if we are picking a random day between mid-May and mid-September.

The other problem with the question is...for whom? Our second hole is about 445, but when it's firm I can drive it to 130 or so and hit a wedge high in the air and land it on the green and keep it on...someone that can only drive it to 175 has no chance to land it on and keep it on...in fact I probably could not land it on and keep it on from 175 during much of the summer.

[Phil Benedict]

Chip,

Jim makes a good point that courses play differently depending on ball flight and other playing characteristics.  Our club champion has a relatively low ball flight and doesn't spin the ball very much.  He will often run the ball up to a green, particularly on our long par fours.  I don't think he makes a conscious choice to use the ground game; it just happens to fit his ball flight.  You may not be surprised to learn that it doesn't suit my ball flight very well.

[Sean_A]

I think proper old time f&f is a disappearing mode of operation.  Folks are just too tempted to turn on the sprinklers and there are very few links left without water systems.  I spose this is why it is such a joy to play these 2nd/3rd tier courses which haven't succombed to dumbing down the game by trying to make conditions reasonably similar throughout the year.   To be clear, my idea of proper f&f is different from TomP.  I do believe that at its height (and acceptably so), however many days a year that is, wedge shots from fairways should struggle to stay on if you hit the green first.  This is probably why I am generally against solid sand/water fronting of greens - they take away proper f&f conditions. Sure, its fine to slip a green or two with no runup allowed, but the green better be very long and it better take into account prevailing winds.  It is what it is and I don't think these conditions should be watered out unless its absolutely necessary - which is very, very rarely. 

Probably the last time I played real f&f was at North Wales.  The ball would roll forever.  I don't lie, often times you had to land a ball at least 50 yards short of greens.  For those that know the course, I used a chippy 8 iron on the par 5 14th for my second and went long.  On the 17th, a par 3 over a valley, I ran a 6 iron nearly all the way on the floor.  One just couldn't throw the ball up to this short par 3 with a 9 iron and expect the ball to stop anything less than off the course.  It was a great day's golf playing across those burnt-out fairways.  The course that I know the best which consistently offers f&f is Pennard.  If folks aren't prepared to drop shots 50 yards short of greens (its not at all rare to do so) - don't bother visiting - you won't like it.  The course sets up very well, tricky mind, but very well for the TRUE ground game.

The courses I see which many Americans say is f&f just ain't.  They are usually quite modest on the f&f scale.  There is probably a reason for this though, I lot of folks don't like TRUE f&f, probably because so many courses have been narrowed to the point where its a form of torture to play the game this way. 

Ciao 

[JESII]

I played Deal and Sandwich during the 1997 Amateur and that was as firm as I've seen. 2 iron to stay short of the canal on #14 at RSG and then a chip 6 iron from there. The hole on the back at Deal that starts by the dune and goes almost straight away and a bit to the right (#?) played like a long par 3...On both courses the wind was a strong as the ground was firm...that being said, Sean, I think you'd be impressed with the "True F&F" demonstrated at HVCC in the mid-late summer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think F and F was an American fallacy starting about 1930 when the first irrigation systems arrived.  Greens have been watered since then in the USA.  In Britain, not so much until the 1980's.

Read the books and American players were talking about "check" and "bite" on their approach shots back then.  And, even the fw had single row quick coupler irrigation.  If they didn't, they were bluegrass or bermuda and cut high enough to avoid stress.  Granted, in the height of summer, fw ran more than other times of year, as opposed to consistent conditions now, but I don't think Americans ever typically tried to play Links style golf here.   It was fundamentally different from nearly the beginning.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

This is an interesting topic.

I think you have to go back to the intent of the design.

If a course wasn't designed to play F & F, then attempts to make it conform to F & F may be futile.

I also agree with TEPaul.
Now I know that's hard to believe, but, I think he's correct in stating that landing the ball 10-20 yards short shouldn't be a mandate.  The "ideal maintainance meld" would seem to be a more practical goal.

I think green size and the presentation of the green have a lot to do with the intent to play F & F.

With seasonal/climate swings F & F is a window of opportunity at best in the U.S. at the great majority of courses.

As to NGLA, # 2, # 5, # 7, # 9, # 10 ?, # 11, # 12, # 14, # 15, # 16 and # 18 could fit into your 10-20 yards short category, depending upon conditions, soil & wind.

I think Tom Doak alluded to the problem we perceive, namely, that you can't transport links golf to every corner of the country and expect the same playing conditions.

I think what many of us yearn for is the opportunity to have the option to play 10-20 yards short or to attack the green.

Some years ago I recall playing # 16 at GCGC when the hole was cut to the front 3rd of the green.  You HAD to play 10-20 or more yards short in order to get close to the hole.

Unfortunately, if Mother Nature doesn't co-operate, all the good intentions in the world won't produce F & F in many areas of the U.S.

So, to answer your question, I think F & F is a bit of a fantasy that we all pursue to a degree.

[Kirk Gill]

I'm assuming you're making a differentiation between firm and fast, and just hard as a rock.

Ah, the joys of City Park Golf course back in the day, when if you had the temerity to land an approach on the green you were going 20 yards over the back. You couldn't make a mark on those greens with a hammer.

But even the local munis are softer now........

[Tom Dunne]

Chip: I've only played it once, about six weeks before the '04 US Open, but Shinnecock Hills fits the parameters you described very well.

[Ed Oden]

JES:

I was very impressed with the conditions at HVCC this summer.  It was firmer and faster than any non-links course I have seen.  I doubt any hilly, treed, American parkland course could ever satisfy Chip's test.  But HVCC comes close and the club should be praised for the unique presentation of the course.  It is a real treat.

Ed

[Jason Hines]

American courses are not firm and fast….. and that’s …… OK.  Valhalla was not firm and fast.  Even my beloved WH is not firm and fast for a couple months a year because the weather hits 35 c and 40 km per hour wind.  You have to water.  Don’t get me wrong, I was at BN a few months ago POed that they watered the day before.

[Greg Murphy]

Firm and fast. It's THE ONLY WAY! I don't get it. To me, it's no different than demanding narrow corridors, forcing everyone to way to play ONE WAY. Minimize options. Eliminate them altogether. No matter how skilled, force everyone to bunt the ball along the ground to get anywhere near the pin. Where's the fun in that?

Allow the ground game. Don't dictate it.

[Jason Hines]

To me, the fun is in variety of courses.   Firm, fast, short, long, quirky greens, brown, over watered.

[Scott Szabo]

Firm and fast. It's THE ONLY WAY! I don't get it. To me, it's no different than demanding narrow corridors, forcing everyone to way to play ONE WAY. Minimize options. Eliminate them altogether. No matter how skilled, force everyone to bunt the ball along the ground to get anywhere near the pin. Where's the fun in that?

Allow the ground game. Don't dictate it.

Well put Greg, although I think you're about to get hammered for those comments 

[Adam Clayman]

I don't know about hammered unless hammered is new code for praised. Landing balls well short is a decision. Just yesterday BN was a blower and it was an imperative to play the ground. Even on the raised greens. F&F is an ideal not fantasy fallacy or whatever.   

[Padraig Dooley]

Firm and fast. It's THE ONLY WAY! I don't get it. To me, it's no different than demanding narrow corridors, forcing everyone to way to play ONE WAY. Minimize options. Eliminate them altogether. No matter how skilled, force everyone to bunt the ball along the ground to get anywhere near the pin. Where's the fun in that?

Allow the ground game. Don't dictate it.

Greg

Firm conditions still allow for the use of the aerial game, the golfer's head has to be used a bit more then normal, angles, shot shaping etc.

I don't think I've ever come across conditions where the majority of shots had to be nudged along the ground to get close to the pin.

[TEPaul]

I see a pretty good number of American courses and particularly some of the older ones getting into  real firm and fast maintenance programs in the last ten or more years. These courses are playing so much firmer and faster than they used to. The ones I've seen include HVGC, Merion, Aronimink, Pine Valley, GMGC, Oakmont, Myopia, NGLA, Maidstone, Fishers Island, Manufacturers, Sunnehanna and obviously numerous others.

I think it's a new awakening and a new type of maintenance approach and done correctly with good strategic and optional balance it highlights the various architectural elements of these courses to playable effectiveness which the old over-irrigated programs did not allow on these courses.

If it is done differently in some way than abroad then so be it. The old criticisms from abroad that it's not the same or not as good as linksland golf that have been going on for well over a century beginning with "nae links, nae golf" are tired old criticisms and should be ignored.

Firm and fast American inland golf may not be the same as linksland golf and it should probably never try to be. If one wants linksland firm and fast then go to the linksland. If one wants good firm and fast American inland golf then those courses mentioned above and numerous others are producing it and the point is it's a whole lot different now on those courses than it was a decade and more ago.

This is a very good thing and it makes these courses play so much more interesting than they used to as I remember them all once.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I think the trend you mention parallels the trend in tree removal.
I think they have a hand in glove relationship.

Sunlight and air circulation are catalysts for achieving F & F.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Sure it does. The trend to firm and fast parallels a lot of things including tree removal. Trees are total hogs around grass with water, nutrients and obviously sunlight and air circulation.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()