[Mike_Young]

If you receive Golf Course News read the article on page 9 by Kevin Ross titled "New Construction and Management techniques for approach areas". or go to www.golfcoursenews.com and download the article.  It describes methods for improving approaches.  Excellent ideas... .  The methods described are similar to greens construction including separate irrigation. This will increase construction cost significantly.  I have used a modified greens construction in chipping areas before with good results.  But where do we stop.  Golf is in trouble and someone has to pay for these things whether it be memberships or green fees.  Opinions or ideas?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'm looking forward to getting into that site and article but in the meantime I would say as to where to stop that you guys in the business would know that better than some of us non-professionals! However, having said that, a lot of the nonprofessionals are every bit as good at analyzing the playability of golf holes and courses once they're made and that is damned important! Maybe the ultimate importance in fact!!

Getting things right is super important and counting dollars and settling for less is understandable but a dangerous way to go as it could create inherent problems for the rest of time and play and that just ain't good.

That kind of thing is where I really look forward to the input of some of the nonprofessionals on here with the guys in the business! And that means you guys taking us as seriously as we take you! You should listen carefully to some of our thoughts on options, interest, variety of playability, whatever and if we collaborate well I look forward to something like this: You listen to some of our ideas on concept, playbabilty etc and you say from a construction/cost perspective--"can do--no can do--or can do with some extra cost involved".

I sort of look at it like the return on advertizing: If the advertizing is good it's going to get a return on the ad cost and if it isn't, it won't! Same with a golf course and its construction and playabilities. If it fun, interesting and exciting the players are more likely to go check it out and then come back for more and if it isn't those things, for whatever reason (even cutting down on extra construction and maintenance cost), then they probably won't and ultimately whose out then and wishing he'd paid what it took to make it as good as it could be in the first place?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I would think that anything done to approaches should be in keeping with how a hole is built and how the rest of the course is maintained. If the course is all about the air ball than the point is moot, but.....
Our soils have a lot of clay in them and retain moisture for a long time or get rock hard in dry spells. Our super is adding some sprinklers to certain approaches so he can start maintaining them more in sync w/green conditions, which are firm but receptive.
I think this will add another dimension to our course. It will allow him to maintain approaches w/thicker, healthier grass that can be cut at slightly lower heights. This will definitely cause more indecision - "shall I chip or putt" - while allowing  more choices to happen. A plus I think.

I don't know where the "stop" sign is but I don't think it's with this issue. Golf is in trouble because those who are building them forgot that it's about the playing field first. Take 5,000 sq. ft. off the clubhouse, don't pave the whole course, put a candy & soda machine at the turn, (unless the cart girl is really special ), don't hire the official greeter and viola!, a construction technique that will allow a course to play firmer at all times is paid for.  

      

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

As to the technical question, I don't think the part circle heads would add that much to the cost, as the pipe is already there, and will add even less in the future, if and when they become standard. Drainage used to be expensive, but with the evolution of plastic pipe, became cheaper, and then more of it was put in where necessary.

Purchasing and placing usga sand down the approaches is pretty much a one to one cost ratio, not likely to go down because it will always require detailed labor, as well as the material cost.

Seems a bit extreme in most cases to build USGA approaches, but I have always tried to pay special attention to the green approach in drainage and irrigation because most golfers (on walking courses) traverse this area as well as at least three sets of mowers turning in this area (fw, green, and collar or bank) which causes damage.  last but not least, the occaisional run up shot goes through these areas, and should not have a plugged lie from overwatering and mower turn damage.  With the advent of more cart play, we also pay attention to the drainage, etc. in the area between cart path and green.

More interesting to me is your quote:

"...the nonprofessionals are every bit as good at analyzing the playability of golf holes and courses once they're made and that is damned important! Maybe the ultimate importance in fact!! "

where you raise the interesting, even Tom MacWoodian, question of whether the art of golf design itself has any value if there are not critics to evaluate?  (If a golf course evolves in the woods, but nobody sees it, does it really exist?)

Your post also vaguely reminds me of several local art, restaruant and movie critics I read that seem to say, "They will like what I tell them to like!" Is this your percieved role of GCA - "tastemakers" in golf design?

Let the discussion begin!

PS to Mike and all - sorry for the "topic creep."

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I'm not real sure how to answer your remark about nonprofessionals (Golfclubatlas's or others) being tastemakers like what some local art and restuarant critics say they are.

I don't want to seem arrogant on the matter and I'm definitely not suggesting that some of the nonprofessionals on here are as competent in concept as you professionals are. We sure aren't anywhere near as knowledgeable as any of you all are on construction, drainage and all the other technical aspects of building courses; that much I know. That's why I suggest some collaborative ideas that would be monitored by you all saying; "Can do or no can do"!

But on some aspects of architectural concept and maybe playability we are more willing to suggest things and probably push the envelope than you all seem to be and the reasons for that are obvious and well chronicled on here. They basically are that it's hard for you all to do because of one or another reason of the owners/developers or the perceived objections of the Everyman golfer--like Fazio keeps saying.

So instead of you all pushing the envelope, let us do it for you. We are a small group but we seem to be getting a bit better known than just our numbers. Why don't you try pointing an owner/developer to us to suggest to him to take a chance on some concept that we come up with together that makes sense to you and to us and hopefully to him?

I guess what I'm saying is that you've been on here a while Jeff and you sometimes indicate in so many words that there may be some things you'd like to try if you could. So I'm saying let us help you do it! Let us help you try to sell someone on a little pushing of the envelope that makes sense. Maybe it wouldn't work but why not give it a try?

How about if we on here collaborate on something--maybe one hole or one little concept somewhere that could be extra interesting and maybe a bit different in maybe a throwback way and see what happens?

Actually I even have an idea that would be very minimalistic that's a take-off on something done at Rustic Canyon. In affect I would expect it to have most golfers saying to themselves; "What's going on here, is somebody trying to fake me out?--and in fact they would be right!

[Tom Doak]

Mike,

For our new course at Texas Tech we are going to try building the chipping areas around the greens AND the approaches with 6 inches of sand mix, to get the same ball reaction.

You ask "where do we stop" and I haven't figured that out yet, at least I don't know how far out on the approach I ought to go.  But, we're hoping that building "California" greens and approaches won't cost much more than building "USGA" greens, since we don't have to be as picky about the sand we use and since we won't need to put gravel under the entire green surface.

The real advantage, to me, is that we'll be taking the "seam" between the native soil and the sand mix away from the edge of the green, so we don't have to worry so much about settling [i.e. chipping or putting over it].  And the irrigation around the green should be much more consistent as a result, too.

[A_Clay_Man]

Surprise surprise I'm confused. Is there a dychotomy above? Did you say 'firmer all the time' but are 'adding sprinklers'? or just diff?

I was hoping this would be the start of the "maintenance meld"
 Here's one: Aren't the conditions of these approach areas the most crucial in tackleing the challenge of the ground game?

[Don_Mahaffey]

As a super who struggles to keep approaches firm, fast, and consistent I find this to be an interesting topic.
My .02 worth.
As far as where do we stop, doing it right during construction does reduce cost over the long haul. Healthy grass is easier and less expensive to care for. If the soil conditions require additional drainage or amendment, it's a hell of a lot better to get it done during construction. If the expectations are for firm/fast/consistent approaches, do it right the first time and you will save money in the long run. Too bad a lot of owners take a "we can always fix it later" attitude.

It is not unusual at all to have the approach irrigation seperate from the greens or fwy irrigation. My course has been that way for 5 years and most of what I see in the Southwest is zoned that way. Really doesn't add much to the cost.

[TEPaul]

Mike, JeffB and Tom Doak:

Whatever I know about construction techniques and such like this approach question I learned from guys like you and some others. But on this issue of approaches being designed for the long run-up approach I recall well what I saw up at Easthampton when it was nearing completion. Well into grow in I was getting a short tour of the place from George Tiska and I noticed these big swaths well out from the greens into the approaches, maybe 40 yrds or so into the approaches and I asked him what those were and he said Coore and Crenshaw had really sand-based far out in the approaches to encourage fast run-up conditions as much as conceivable. And the day I played the course the run-up option was really working!!

[Mike_Young]

TE Paul,
I try to take everyone more seriously than myself and yes,....I do listen and want opinions of anyone that has a passion for the game.  I will form my own opinions from the total.
As for knowing where to stop...Jim Kennedy has very valid points regarding the playing field vs. club facilities.  I have always thought most only needed a "ticket booth" with funds going into construction and maintenance....
.....but what I meant to allude to is that all cost are passed along to the end user.  I appalud the article and think it is a great idea to improve approaches but.... we have known we could do this for years and we haven't....USGA fairways will be next.  The initial construction cost are one thing but there will be an increase in maintenance also.  For example:  It used to be that  a ground driven 10 or 11 bladed fairway unit could be purchased for $20,000 and last a club 15 years.  It would cut about 7 acres an hour at 1/2" height and require about $500 ayear on average for parts.  Then we have the advent of lightweight fairway mowing....$50,000 mowers, 3-5 year lifespans...  Higher quality cuts evolve....higher cost in mowers....less life in mowers....higher maintenance cost, lower fairways and more distance.  I am not saying this is bad.
 ...remember when Paul Latshaw mowed the fairways at Congressional with walking greensmowers for the US Open a few years ago?( a great supt. who has always taken it to the edge)...the only thing that kept it from catching was cost.

I have always thought the architect had a responsibility to his owner to build in the maintenance cost of his projects.  I think one of the major differences between the classic and many modern courses is the "forced maintenance" that is required of many modern designs.

Yes, there are places for "modified approaches" and as Tom Doak says in his reply that maybe it will cost no more than "USGA greens alone" then I would say do it.  We are embarking on a period in golf where we have to lower the green fee and give a good product.  If the cost of an initial construction item will be offset by lower maintenance cost then do it.

Jeff,
I agree with you on approach construction but we both know there will be some guy who decides to cut it to 1/8 inch so that he is "one up" and then it is off to the races....And at the same time I think all of the construction improvements are why some of the " bashed archies" on this site feel that todays courses are the best ever.....
And on another subject.... do you know how to scan to this site a copyof the GCBAA letter regarding Ksat and the new wording for a sand spec? I am not that good with the scanner and this site.   Sometimes this site becomes a little idealistic and that might show a more realistic everyday problem.


Tom,

In the Southeast where we have much clay, I have transitioned modified greens into a 6" sand layer around and into all chipping areas and approaches for a couple of years.  I have had the shaper come back after cutting the cavity and take the 90* edge and blend it at a 5 to 1 ratio.  I have been using the flat pipe in the chipping areas.  I have not done this in my approaches because I have noticed a "bleed" where the sand "toes" into the clay.  I hope more and more will go to the method that you mention.

Well, I guess with a perfect sand site none of this would matter anyway.  We just have to create motre courses where maintenance can " roll with the economic tides".

Mike Y.

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom,
With the "seam" or plastic liner removed from around the green, how do you transition from the sand mixture chipping area to the native soil?  Do you use a transition mixture?
Good luck at Tech.
Just a thought, as I'm located in Houston, would I be able to take a look at those areas someday?  I'd be happy to dig some to try and make it an equitable transfer.
Thanks in advance.
Mike

[TEPaul]

Mike:

That's some technical stuff on construction and the cost info you gave is not encouraging.

Sure, I'm showing my ignorance on construction and maintenance requirments (are they necessities) but we're talking the general subject of firmer and faster conditions here, or at least I thought we were.

Is all this expensive mowing equipment for the approaches and other areas of fairway grass cut to the height of greens not long past really necessary? I thought we're talking dialing down the water--and even doing it without browning out. Is the height of the cut really the determining factor for firm and fast conditions or is it the firmness of the subsoil? I have to think it's the latter because at my course more than half the time we get five times more rollout in the rough than in the fairways and approaches. And the rough sure ain't as short as the fairways and approaches! So what's that all about if not overwatering?

I realize the grass has to be kept looking good but how good? Do we really need approaches and fairways that look like greens did a few decades ago? So is this more about what the grass looks like or plays like? And why is it that I saw so much firmness and speed in Ireland last summer and the grass was green too and it looked just fine (it looked good enough to be acceptable in the USA). Do they have some other type of grass over there, do they have entirely different subsoil conditions or some other conditions or do they just have a different attitude about the way things should look and play?

And how is it that these older classic courses used to have a ground game and they don't anymore? It sounds to me like a water issue that too many golfers are unwilling to look at seriously! And I do see courses in America that are firm and fast most of the time and they aren't always sand soil. So what's going on here? Do we really have to construct approaches and maybe fairways next like a USGA spec green to get firm conditions?

I recognize that any golf course can have different subsoil conditions than the course across the street but this subject has seemed to me to have been made far more complex than even that. Does it really have to be, or are some of you guys just nervous about the razor's edge and the expected negative reaction of the golfer who wants things to look like Augusta?

[Brian Phillips]

I have two examples that we have used:

On a nine hole USGA standard course we used 15 metres in length and the width of the entrance to the green of USGA sand out back towards the line of play.  We only used 15 cm of sand on top shaped up clay.  We included herrinbone drainage in the clay with no carpet of gravel over the whole area just in the trenches.  On the surrounds we tapered the sand from 30 cm on the green (flagged the green before seeding) to 15 cm joining up with native topsoiled that had been screened.  We dropped the plastic liner around the green.  

One problem we got was when the client did not think drainage was necessary in the 15 m approach area.  So what happened the water drained down through the sand but had no where to go so the water gathered up at the bottom of the slope and created an underground pool.  We convinced the client to let us drain the area before the winter came in and hey presto no problems.

At another course:

The client wanted USGA 400 m2 greens and then the same USGA set up with the approaches.  We couldn't understand the difference.  We asked him to let us construct 500m2 (to put more shape into the greens) greens and then herringbone the approaches at 3/4 m spacings to save him money and he has agreed.  He has found a pocket of sand so that we can use that sand for the surrounds.  This again is money saved him money.

My opinion on approaches is shape it up to shed water as quickly as possible and drain the area with herringbone drainage as much as possible according the budget of the client.

Jeff, Tom D or Mike,

Do you think ameriolation of the topsoil with say 15 cm of sand would help the drainage at all?

Cheers Brian

[TEPaul]

Brian:

When you mention those drainage considerations in your post are you assuming natural water and drainage or irrigation water and drainage or just all of it in one package or one consideration? In other words, can you make a distinction between the two? And if you could what would be the resulting differences in playability? Maybe it's a nonquestion  but then again....

[Mike_Young]

T E Paul,
I think the points that you make are correct.  Yes, I think water is the issue with most of the problems......wall to wall irrigation has changed much .....I love and desire firm fast approaches...brown...And I may have confused people by questioning sand in these areas.  I meant to question building these areas to USGA green specs.   That could easily add $500,000 to a construction budget.....As to equipment, well what I was trying to say was ...if it is there it will be used and probably should be.  I guess an analogy would be building a race course that would allow 200 mph and you have a Pinto or a BMW.  You would use the BMW.  So , no, I am not saying the height of cut determines the speed in these areas;  I am saying it becomes a standard because the area is constructed to where it will allow it.
...Ireland...those are good conditions...and great land...but not many areas of the US have the same....and I think that is where increased cost come in is where we try to replicate those same physical properties...but we can't replicate temperature and humidity on 200 acres.  
Please feel free to disagree because I do not claim to know that much about agronomy.  But I think that it would be fair to say the color "green" and growing grasses in regions where they would not normally grow has been one of the main reason that we spend more on construction and maintenance.  I don't think I saw near the problems with greens when I was growing up because the height was higher and they were also push-ups.  Shorter heights required more water in order to cool and in already humid areas this created problems.
So yes I agree water is a detriment to firm conditions in many areas of the US.  But it is not the application of water as much as the retainage of water in these areas and that is why we will probably see more and more of USGA type construction in these areas.  Golf might be much better here if we were all just color blind or at least as far as the color green goes.
Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

I think it ironic that in todays world the sweeping away of the water is desired. As opposed to the old greens where the horeshoe mounding used to push water towards the green.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just asking questions because I don't know the answers and I'm trying to learn as much as I can. And I'm also trying to see the possibilities of acheiving a goal, an end result!

Personally, I thought basic USGA specs were a water retention construction process not the other way around, so if that's true why use the process if basic drainage is the ultimate goal?

As for using more water to keep shorter grass (greens whatever) cool, have you thought of the process, used to good effect by Scott Anderson of Huntingdon Valley, of mixing dirt with the sand topdressing? His reasoning was that it keeps his greens much cooler and therefore much less in need of water, and it's been working well for him. And it also gets goddamned hot in Philadelphia sometimes!

[Brian Phillips]

A_Clay_man,

That's probably because they didn't have irrigation in the old days and that a lot of greens these days are seeded with Creeping Bent that doesn't like extreme amount of water.  A lot of old greens are Poa Annua greens that loves water.

We have huge problems in Norway trying to keep Poa off the creeping bent greens.  Some of the older courses want to rebuild there greens and seed with Creeping bent but they don't realise the cost of maintenance of a creeping bent, USGA green compared to a pushed native soil Poa green.  The fertilser program is totally different to Poa and more expensive as well.  Most of the greenkeepers her ein Norway are only used to working with Poa greens and it is a shock to the system when they start with C.Bent greens.

If I am off base then some let me know will you...

Cheers Brian

[jim__janosik]

Mike,  if the "approach is defined as the  area in front of the green  extended  50 feet or so towards the fairway  this
would average  1,600  sqft per hole times 18 holes times
$4.00  a  square foot  would add  an approximate  $115,00
in  costs to the project.  Then again, approaches don't need to have  12"  of sand.  I believve the approachs should be treated as a high priority on construction  maybe even more
TLC than tees.  Even if it costs  .75 cents  extending the
greens core  all the way in to the approach is overkill.  

Not  to  open a  can a worms  but construction dollars
should never be spent  to offset  a  super who can't  grow
grass.  I  am  a  20 year  super who  has noted a definite
trend  towards  "If its not technicaly perfect then  I can't grow grass on it."  Watch  your dollars and watch who you hire.

[jim__janosik]

Mike,  if the "approach is defined as the  area in front of the green  extended  50 feet or so towards the fairway  this
would average  1,600  sqft per hole times 18 holes times
$4.00  a  square foot  would add  an approximate  $115,00
in  costs to the project.  Then again, approaches don't need to have  12"  of sand.  I believve the approachs should be treated as a high priority on construction  maybe even more
TLC than tees.  Even if it costs  .75 cents  extending the
greens core  all the way in to the approach is overkill.  

Not  to  open a  can a worms  but construction dollars
should never be spent  to offset  a  super who can't  grow
grass.  I  am  a  20 year  super who  has noted a definite
trend  towards  "If its not technicaly perfect then  I can't grow grass on it."  Watch  your dollars and watch who you hire.

[Mike_Young]

A_Clay_Man,

That is ironic.  But without irrigation they were more into collecting water than dispersing...also seemed that most of these eventually dispersed toward the approach didn't they....I remember listening to a talk from Pete Dye once where he was discussing USGA greens and the "virtues " of a green as you mention.  His comment ..."when was the first US Open played on USGA greens"... does anyone know??

TE Paul,
I did not mean to sound as thought I thought you were disagreeing.....even though we can agree to disagree...and I really don't have many answers other than what I have learned thru many FU's and a few lucky results.

As for the USGA green and what it is supposed to do....Hell if I know .  But I think it is a system that should work thru a perched water table to retain a uniform amount of water in a growing medium so that conditions can be managed the same thru out a course.  The term "USGA greens" has come to mean so many different thing in different discussions that I may have used it as a misnomer.  If a drainage system of herringbone pipe with 4" gravel and 12 inches of sand is used and the sand and top of the gravel are in  parallel layers then you have the basic of a USGAsystem.  If the depth of the sand varies from parallel at all then you don't have a USGA system.  So it is my opinion that the USGA system is still a drainage system but it is more important as a uniform water management system.  There are two ways to drain...surface drainage and sub-surface drainage.  Surface is a lot simpler if you do not have to move water a long way and you have the necessary slope to move the water efficiently.  So, it would be my preference to cap an area with a few inches of sand and shape in the slope to move the water in most situations.

As for my comment about using more water to cool the "short grass"..let me try and explain the way it was put to me one time.  Look at the grass as a person...we emit CO2 and the plant emits 02.  We both perspire.  If a large portion of our cooling system was eliminated such as underarms etc. we could overheat and have a very tough time breathing due to humidity.  Well, when a plant depends on the bottom of the leaf(stomato)as its perspiration and breathing mechanism and you cut a large portion of this from the plant then it is taxed.  This leave the supt. with a delicate balance as related to using water to cool but at the same time not making it so humid the plant can't breath.  As for Huntington Valley, I like that thought process as long as you have plenty of positive surface drainage.  Water moved so much more rapidly off of the surface on older more sloped greens than some of the new one with less slope.  You know it is common now to only have 1 to 2 percent slope in some pins and I don't know how the method would work there.  
HAVE I COMPLETELY CONFUSED YOU?

Jim Janosik,
When I was estimating I was allowing for chipping areas, collars and about 70 x 80 sq. ft. in the approach.  I just guestimated.
As for your comment on "spending construction dollars to offset a supt. who can't grow grass".  I could not agree more.  I have even advised owners to hire the best supt. they can find and he will get the conditions right.  But you see more and more guys using so construction problems  as a crutch.   If an owner would not worry about what he has to pay a supt. and just worries about his overall maintenance budget.  The good supt will pay for himself with in that budget just by what he saves with experience over the weaker supt. in most cases.

[Nick (Guest)]

Could someone post the direct link to the article.  I can't seem to find it on the  Golf Course News website.  Thanks

[Lou Duran]

Mike:

On an existing course, assuming sufficient slope for good surface drainage, would an accelarated program of deep core aerification and sanding help in firming up the approaches?  How about collection areas that are cut to fairway length, what can be done to dry these up?  We have several of these with large drains at the bottom but they are permanently wet.  

[Mike_Young]

Nick,
I looked.  I don't think the Jan. issue is on line yet.  It is in that issue.  Also, I think you could subscribe if you for nothing if you somehow have a connection to the business.

Lou,
I still think that the main cause for many wet approaches on old courses is that all drainage was directed into and out of the approach...fine until more irrigation came along....
I would think that accelerated aerification would go a long way if there was some type of surface barrier that needed to be broken.   I just don't know enough about aerification but it seems it should help..Someone correct me if I am wrong...but I have thought that the main reason for aerification was to correct anerobic conditions and get more oxygen to the roots..............have you ever tried the "slit type pipe" that ADS makes?

 As for collection areas...unless in pure sand (and even then when possible)I would try to always have positive surface drainage while still maintaining a "mit affect" for the shot. .....when you are working with a drain and subsurface piping in these areas I would suggest taking a transit and making sure the drain is at the absolute low point and that the invert is at least a foot below the surface.  You would be surprised how wet an area can be when the drain is even 1/4 inch above the low point.
Mike

[TEPaul]

Lou:

You probably have a point there about deep aerification but it's not that simple when discussing the subject from an irrigation/drainage standpoint.

I think Mike Young answered quite correctly when he said  that aerification might be necessary for anerobic conditions--assumimg anerobic means subsoil condtions that don't drain well (or basically breath well) etc, for some reason!

This entire subject is interesting to me, but frankly, I'm particularly interested because of my own course and the difficulty of how to acheive consistently firmer and faster conditions. My super says it's difficult (to impossible) at our course (at least to get consistently firm/fast conditions throughout the course) due to a subsoil condition we have in some spots on the course (and some approaches) call Hydrophobia.

Hydrophobia is caused by a subsoil condition that has dense thickly packed soil through which water will not penetrate well (and presumably either will the grass roots).  And remember as Mike Young said, drainage is both surface run-off and also drainage through the soil in a percolating, permeating manner!  

Since these hydrophobic areas don't allow the water to penetrate or the grass roots the maintenance of agronomy on these areas might be a bit tricky. Healthy grass generally needs deep roots and the roots won't get long and deep if they can't get through the subsoil looking for moisture! So hydrophia seems to be a subsoil double whammy where neither water nor roots can penetrate. Deep-tine aerification can correct problems of hydrophobia to a degree but it's both expensive and screws up play for a time.

The method our super uses to deal with the hydophobic areas is to basically create mini-storm conditions with irrigation to soak the hydrophobic areas and help the soil to stay wet and percolate as well as possible! Obviously this is not conducive to firm and fast conditions. He says if he doesn't do that these hydrophobic areas will only get worse and more dense and impenetrable and cause more agronomic problems but also cause the natural water (and irrigation water) to run across the surface more and permeate and percolate less.

So you can see it's sort of a cyclical problem. But back to your remark--he says that deep-tine aerification may be the only way to correct the problem but do we want to pay for it and see the course's playing conditions screwed up more often?

So he keeps these areas wet and the ball does not run where it should. That's where I'm at now with this firm and fast goal and obviously I'm still looking for ways and other ways to correct the problem!

Any advice would definitely be welcome, and Mike Young this is precisely why I keep asking all these questions--and trying to learn how to correct this problem or at least if it's possible to correct!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()