Course Conditioning - I just don't get it

[George Freeman]

Great article from Sports Illustrated about firm & fast course conditioning and Huntington Valley's Super Scott Anderson.  I just don't get why more courses don't follow these footsteps.  It appears the only thing holding back this conditioning revolution is the golfing public's opinion of how a golf course should look.  How this outweighs all the benefits of this type of maintenance, I do not know; the result of which leads to less money spent and better playing surfaces that have less of a negative impact on the environment.  Why can't the opinion of the golfing public be changed??

[Matt_Ward]

George:

It takes a significant amount of time to get other golfers aware that all-green layouts are not the ideal. When people have been playing courses where ball marks routinely happen on the tee shot it can be tough to see balls bouncing around with pure abandon. In addition, it takes plenty of work to get a course to be F&F and then not have it become a dirt track if one overcooks the degree you do it.

For many superintendents the risk in going fast and firm can be a dicey proposition. Better to water things as per usual and save oneself the unknown that might come back to bite one in the butt. My 2 cents worth ...

[Dan Herrmann]

We were going to have a browning (actually, firm and fast) effort this year, but had about 40% more rain than normal.

There was a time this year where we had little rain for about 20 days.  The course never played better. 

[JC Jones]

Jorge,

We played Sugarloaf Mountain on Wednesday and but for the greens being a bit slow, I thought the course was in perfect condition.  Rough around the edges, brown in parts and pretty firm.  I dont think it was the intent as I understood the conditions to be a product of the course not being in good financial condition and only having the minimal maintenance budget.  Apparently they receive complaints because of the condition.  Hopefully people will wise up and realize how golf should be played, and part of that is turf conditions.

[Kyle Harris]

George,

In how many of the climates of the world do you think the program is applicable?

How about in the United States?

[Michael Dugger]

I think a large part of it comes down to shifting a paradigm.

Take a superintendent who has observed for years that lush green courses are how folks keep their jobs and he/she is going to be very reluctant to be the first one on the block to start doing things a different way....

Change takes time...

[Adam Clayman]

It's articles like this that will help in shifting the paradigm. My guess...

200 more articles exposing the masses to the duping they've been a victim of, will be a good start.

 Kyle, The fundamentals of smarter practices should work in every environment. Shouldn't they? Doing what mother nature would do implies site specific application.
I know for a fact that when Ken Dye designed Pinon Hills he took into account the arid region it resided. What he didn't know was that some non-golfing rather effeminate City Manager wouldn't "care what color the golf course is. As long as it's green" mandate given to the Superintendent would render his feature shaping superfluous. Except in the winter.

[JC Jones]

George,

In how many of the climates of the world do you think the program is applicable?

How about in the United States?

Kyle,

So far I've seen it in northern Michigan, the pacific northwest and central Florida.  According to this article, it is ok in the northeast as well.  From what I understand its also applicable in the plains states.

Which climates in the US are we missing?

[Kyle Harris]

Perhaps you're both falling victim to the color bias, in a reverse direction.

Scott's program is specifically tailored for the transition zone. It would do well to read his interviews posted on this site.

That's not to say clever and judicious use of the tools of agronomy is not the goal - however, the outcomes and measureables may not be as readily apparent. When conditions are right for green grass - the grass will be green.

JC Jones,

Winter dormancy in Florida and summer dormancy in Pennsylvania are two different things - though the result may look the same, the management is completely different.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't think anyone, anywhere, should adopt Scott A.'s "program". I think the mentality that resulted in Scott's program should be understood before embarking on any agronomic changes. Once that has been done, and it can(and should), then each super can start to reduce on their property as they see fit and likely know best how to do it.

The key to all this...the paradigm, the understanding, the change in conditioning.....all of it can succeed if time is recognized as the critical element.

Joe

[Chris Tritabaugh]

This is a chicken and the egg situation. How many memberships are going to ask their superintendent for a browner course. And most superintendents are not going to walk out on this limb without someone asking them to do so. Self-preservation on the superintendents part.

A paradigm shift is the right idea but it moves like a glacier. It will happen but it will take some time. 

[Adam Clayman]

There's so much dichotomy and bullshit surrounding green versus brown, it baffles analysis.

First off, grass needn't be brown to play firm, and secondly, Every tour event (especially those venues that need to trick up their course for the pros) for the last 20 years, has more brown grass showing by Sunday, that the viewing public should be asking "why can't we have brown fairways?"

The general reaction, after "Michaud's Revenge" was the biggest bullshit of all time.

[Jake Straub]

Two things that to remember when trying to adopt F&F playing condition.   First, F&F always sounds great in the off season and second mother nature rules when it comes to F&F.  It is very hard for any individual to find line between death and dormancy.

This conversation on F&F sounds great in the off season and excites many members who proclaim this is the year that are course will play F&F.  The problem is when you get into the season does this group still feel the same way when the first fairway is brown and crispy?  You almost have to take a master plan approach and incorporate this maintenance practice over an extended period of time.  The goal each year would be to reduce irrigation water usage from the prior year, along with a monitoring other inputs that lead to S&S (Soft and Slow) conditions.

When mother nature forces you to use little to no water on certain parts of the golf course during a water restriction year you truely see how resilent grass really is, it's pretty damn scary how far it can be pushed.  I pretty sure that superintendents would agree that when you are the one who is controlling the water emotion comes into play because you always ask your self "did i push it too far? is it going to come back?".  During water restriction years you don't have any choices but to follow the restrictions.  How many supers get fired during a drought year with water restrictions for letting their course brown and play F&F? 

Just a couple of thoughts....

 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Like Jake I'll add a few more thoughts.
Joe sort of hit on this but I'm starting to really dislike the word "program" when applied to greenkeeping.
Scott's program works great for him but it's doubtful it would work near as well even at a course 50 miles away. We don't need to copy his program but I would copy his approach. Which to me seems to be growing the best turf you can with the fewest inputs; or maintaining the best turf possible using inputs that allow him to use the least amount of water? Growing good golfing turf is still at the top of his list I’ll bet. That’s over simplified I'm sure, but it's probably close.

As far as the whole F & F vs. wet and slow argument, no one wants a wet slow golf course. Soft and dry, yeah, but that's even harder than F & F a lot of the time. To me it's more of a lean vs. lush deal. Americans love a lush golf course. You even see that word used a lot on marketing and more than once I've heard the word when someone is praising conditions. Lean vs. lush crosses all soil, grasses, and climates. The leaner we can keep our courses while still maintaining good golfing turf, the better our courses will play.

[Mac Plumart]

My opinion is that the fast and firm/brown and fun course can be marketed better and, therefore,be used to attract golfers.

For instance, when I went to Sea Island a few weeks ago I played Plantation and Seaside.  Both were green and wet and slow.  Now, understand it has rained a lot in GA lately.  But through conversations with a lot of people at the resort, it is my understanding that they water their courses daily...including Seaside which has a very linksy feel to it.

I think they could market Plantation as a traditional American-style golf course and Seaside as a links course.  Put some pieces on the website about why they want to keep it brown (when weather dictates) and fast and firm (as best they can) and have golfers understand they can have a diverse golfing experience at the resort.  American style golf and links style golf (or Scottish style if you will).

I know it would work, if the owners of the courses/resorts took the time to market it better.

[JC Jones]

JC Jones,

Winter dormancy in Florida and summer dormancy in Pennsylvania are two different things - though the result may look the same, the management is completely different.

I don't disagree with that and I'm not saying that the exact "program" that works at this course would work at the one next door.  What I was referencing was a philosophy of doing as little as possible to yield the best turf possible.  That is what I've seen or have been told by others who have seen it, in just about every climate in this country.

[Pete Lavallee]

One issue no one has touched on is that F&F makes golf harder. It much more difficult for golfers of average ability to get both wedges and woods airbourne. Want to hear someone scream, watch what happens when the first 5 wood fails to hold the green and bounds on through. Although better players and people from this web site want F&F, I'd wager most 90 shooters would rather have the lush conditions which don't expose their weaknesses. The payback of longer drives isn't enough to tip the scales for them. 

[Jake Straub]

Pete 

You make a really good point.  I went and played Yale a few years ago and someone in our threesome made the comment about the price.  Two of us thought it was a deal and thought conditions were perfect for the architecture and layout, the third in our group felt you should see nothing but green for that price.  Pete, I think your bang on in this economy you need to cater to your audience.  Let's be honest anyone whose been to Bandon and likes the conditions doesn't think twice about the price but only dreams about the next visit.  Just writing Bandon brings a smile to my face, I may go check my stocking again to see if St. Nick left some plane tickets

[Tim Nugent]

Don M is spot-on.  The problem with a discussion of this with GCA posters is that a majority of the golfing public (in the States) ASSOCIATE lush, green turf as superior - plain and simple.  Where do you think "the grass is always greener on the otherside of the fence"
came from???  This is ingrained into the public psyche.  When low-gro Blues came out, I thought "great - now we can get the best of both worlds" but the perception was "Bent=quality, Bluegrass=low budget".

Supers have to produce what is "Perceived" to be quallity or the opportunity will fall to the next guy.  When it comes down to being idealistic and feeding your family, guess what will win every time?

Ironically, it seems that the guys that want lush are also the same ones who's game could benefit from lean.  But, although lean will add 20 yds to their drive, it also required one to hit down rather than sweep.  I'm sure most golf purests already hit down, so firm, tight lies are considered ideal.  But a large majority out there are sweepers and like to "get under the ball".  If the roughs are thin, the ball settles down to the soil.  So they want lush 2.5" rough - so what if they can't find there ball, it stops quickly upon entering, and they break their wrists trying to get out.  Of course, lush rough is actually more of a hinderence to better players due to fliers.

I worked on a course where a new super lowered the fairway height (Zoysia) from 1.5" to 3/4".  At first there as a lot of bitching by the old guard but eventually they got used to it and the fact that the ball rolled further.  Like Pete said, just make sure the greens receive a shot (and the tees are soft enough to get the peg in without a hammer).

[Bradley Anderson]

I kinda got a different take on all of this. I have said on here before that I do not know of any superintendents who intentionally over water or over fertilize. I think the vast majority of superintendents manage for fast and firm conditions. Some are able to provide faster and firmer conditions than others because they are managing circumstances that allow those conditions. Let me use myself as an example.

Three years ago I was at a RB Harris club that had greens which were well drained and in full sun. The grass on those greens was predominately bentgrass and in the heat of the summer I had four inches of roots. Now I am at a club that has shaded greens with areas that hold water. The grass on those greens is almost 100% Poa, and when I am in the month of August I only have a 1/2 inch of roots. Those are two totally different situations. The only way I can convert those grasses is to cut down all the trees, regrade the surface of the greens to drain, and ressed to bentgrass. Now I can add bent seed to ballmarks and aeration holes, but the conversion to predominately bent is not going to happen very quickly thats for sure. But let me clarify that even with shorter roots I can still provide lean and fast, and they are pretty firm overall.

Anyways....the guys who come on here and brag about their fast and firm conditions should remember that there are syuperintendents out there who are dealing with entirely different circumstances. ITS NOT ABOUT WHO HAS THE BIGGEST BALLS. Give me a friggin break.

[Adam Clayman]

One issue no one has touched on is that F&F makes golf harder. It much more difficult for golfers of average ability to get both wedges and woods airbourne. Want to hear someone scream, watch what happens when the first 5 wood fails to hold the green and bounds on through. Although better players and people from this web site want F&F, I'd wager most 90 shooters would rather have the lush conditions which don't expose their weaknesses. The payback of longer drives isn't enough to tip the scales for them. 

Pete, The intellectually honest reaction to the guy who can't hold with his five wood is that HE used the wrong club.

This is similar to players blaming an architect for their lack of awareness.

Plus Pete, I have witnessed where the short knocker benefitted more from F&F because they were able to reach greens in reg that they could not because of the soft conditions from over watering and most greens drain to the front.

[Ryan DeMay]

I have to agree with Don and Brad; being lean with your inputs, with lean being relative to your site, will ultimately produce the type of playing conditions that are discussed here ad nauseam.  Additionally, a lot of good points have been brought up regarding the paradigm shift that needs to occur over the long term in order for "firm and fast" conditions to be the norm.  While superintendents are not going to implement wholesale changes to the golf course overnight, I think we will start to see superintendents pipe up a bit more with regards to options and outcomes related to reducing inputs.  This is not exactly sticking one's neck out there to be lopped off by a committee, membership, or owner but, at the minimum it can begin the dialogue of where reduced inputs can take the course from both a conditioning and financial perspective.

Moreover, Don is correct in saying that there is no one program that will work in specific regions of the country.  Developing an approach that is right for a specific golf course will take several years to balance and work efficiently.  And while it may look as though Brad's course, for example, is greener than his neighboring club it certainly does not mean that he's not doing all he can to reduce inputs and produce firmer and faster conditions.  The site specific limitations from one course to the next will dictate the degree to which a course can be firmer and faster.  

[Sean_A]

I have sensed a lot of defensive reaction from folks about this issue over the years.  I don't think anybody is really advocating blanket programs across regions.  My sense is that the "pro brown" folks are saying less input is what is needed.  Then, when the weather cooperates, there is a chance to have ideal conditions.  As it is now, whenever I visit the States, it seems the courses are nearly always too wet, and this often follows dry weather.  In fact, the one course which impressed me the most was Merion.  I wouldn't have called it dry and firm, but it was VERY playable after a serious rainstorm (I think two inches) the previous the day.  I was also impressed with Michigan when I saw it in spring a was ago - it was hands down the best conditioned course I have seen in the States for many a year.  Yeamans was also well conditioned - but these are rare exceptions. Again, I think people are only asking for courses to be prepped for when the weather cooperates - they will shine.  I find it hard to believe that this a reasonable goal no matter where the course is.

Ciao

[Chris Flamion]

This is something I have never understood about all of my local golf courses.  The consistent amount of ball marks that I find in the middle of the fairway is simply aggravating.   Add on to this that I fix 3-4 ball marks every green because the course is so wet.  While I would never ask that the course be "brown" I don't think it is to much to ask for a course not to be super soaked.  I think the problem is that while not too many like the course to squish plenty of people like the fact that a course is green and pretty.  I believe the super is planning on being a bit more frugal with water this year mostly due to the fact that he is losing a little bit of budget.  If this does come to pass it should be interesting hearing what people thoughts are on it.

[JC Jones]

One issue no one has touched on is that F&F makes golf harder. It much more difficult for golfers of average ability to get both wedges and woods airbourne. Want to hear someone scream, watch what happens when the first 5 wood fails to hold the green and bounds on through. Although better players and people from this web site want F&F, I'd wager most 90 shooters would rather have the lush conditions which don't expose their weaknesses. The payback of longer drives isn't enough to tip the scales for them. 

Pete, The intellectually honest reaction to the guy who can't hold with his five wood is that HE used the wrong club.

This is similar to players blaming an architect for their lack of awareness.

Plus Pete, I have witnessed where the short knocker benefitted more from F&F because they were able to reach greens in reg that they could not because of the soft conditions from over watering and most greens drain to the front.

Pete,

Take this from anyone I've played with on this site, this year, I am terrible.  I hit the worst shots you've ever seen and I'd prefer the conditions of lean and mean over super lush any day of the week.