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.


Patrick_Mucci

Conditioning
« on: September 05, 2015, 12:45:08 PM »
Does it really matter ?
 
In a recent thread, JakaB stated the following:
 
   "If you need a perfect lie everytime carry a mat."    That's a complete dismissal of the quality of the playing surfaces.   I'm in the opposite camp as I feel that the quality of the playing surfaces is a critical element in the play and enjoyment of the game.   Recently, I was critical of the conditioning at Pebble Beach versus the other golf courses on the peninsula.   I prefer F&F.  I don't want spongey conditions where my drive ends up within a foot of it's pitch mark and the ball has mud on it.   I don't want my ball to be close to the deep pitch mark on the green, the pitch mark where dirt, not grass is at the base.  I don't want my ball to have that dirt on it.   Over watering is a form of camoflage and a form of deception.   I want yellowish/brownish/greenish grass on the fairways, greens and rough.   I don't want rock hard surfaces, but, I want firm surfaces   Firm putting surfaces reward well struck shots.   Soggy putting surfaces reward poorly struck shots.   Perhaps that's the problem.   Golfers wanting assistance from the condition of the course.   What's a reasonable expectation for the playing surfaces given normal weather ?

Peter Pallotta

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2015, 01:12:22 PM »
Patrick -

I don't know the answer, but I think your concluding sentence is very telling and relevant to the discussion, i.e. What's a reasonable expectation for the playing surfaces given normal weather conditions?" [bold, mine].

You did not ask the question in terms of given "budgetary constraints" or the anticipated "target market" a differing "ethos of the game" or factoring in "modern-day golfers' expectations" -- all of which I'd suggest are just as realistic factors vis-a-vis playing surfaces as your "weather conditions".

Now, please understand: I'm not suggesting that you're wrong in framing the question the way you did, or even that "weather conditions" may not indeed be the primary consideration/approach.

What I am suggesting is that, once again, as you did in another recent thread, you are assuming where you might instead be asking, i.e. you take your own personal and implicit value system --  where fast and firm is better than soft and lush -- and establish it as an undeniable truth, and then you ask your question accordingly.

Yes, if I agree with it as "undeniable truth" that I am almost bound to frame, like you, the question in terms of "weather conditions". But thousands of golf courses and hundreds of thousands of golfers appear not to share your same value system.

Peter
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 01:14:17 PM by PPallotta »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2015, 02:29:19 PM »
  What's a reasonable expectation for the playing surfaces given normal weather ?

Pat,

My preference is to let normal weather be the practical manipulator of the playing conditions. We humans are capable of managing and manipulating almost everything, so we do. But, i wish we wouldn't so much when it comes to the golf course. But again, that's my preference and it isn't a common one.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2015, 02:53:30 PM »
Pat,


I was referring to shots hit off the fairway when I said "If you need a perfect lie everytime carry a mat.", specifically when in the trees.  I'm an amazingly lucky person and will always prefer an element of luck be introduced into the game.  Off the top of my head I'd say a perfect lie in the fairway 80% of the time with a perfect lie in the rough 20% of the time would be about right for a competitive environment.  Good lies 15% and 55% respectively with horrible lies 5% and 25% respectively.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2015, 03:16:35 PM »
My thoughts are generally akin to what you've written above Pat so I'd be interested to also hear your thoughts on the conditioning of sand bunkers and sandy waste areas?


Raked and groomed and immaculate or scruffy and uneven and unraked?


Atb


« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 03:20:50 PM by Thomas Dai »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #5 on: September 05, 2015, 04:34:37 PM »
Peter,

The condition of the playing surfaces of a golf course should be akin to the standard inflation (lbs) of a football or basketball.

It should not be dependent upon sub-sets of the end users.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2015, 04:38:18 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

James Brown

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #6 on: September 05, 2015, 07:40:00 PM »
Peter,

The condition of the playing surfaces of a golf course should be akin to the standard inflation (lbs) of a football or basketball.

It should not be dependent upon sub-sets of the end users.


I agree completely.  It annoys me to no end when I see watering right after a big rain.  Firm and fast is just a matter of choice and commitment. 

Jeff Bergeron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #7 on: September 05, 2015, 08:14:38 PM »
You can't have a discussion about conditioning without focusing on trees, grasses and bunkers. My position (as an accountant not agronomist):


Tree removal opens up the land to wind which allows drier conditions that play faster.


Greens that are largely annual bluegrass (poa annua) are extremely vulnerable to disease, particularly in hot conditions. Supers need to pour on the water to reduce this risk resulting in soft greens. If I were them I would too. No quicker way to lose your job than lose the greens. Course that invest in drainage and the new bents have a huge advantage in achieving firm greens. Of course, bent doesn't grow in the shade so trees that shade greens must be removed.


I believe bunkers should be consistent. Yes, I know they are hazards but lets give the 99% of us the chance to save par with a good recovery shot and putt.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #8 on: September 05, 2015, 09:03:10 PM »
Jeff,

It's all about three words.

Water, water, water.

Jeff Bergeron

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #9 on: September 05, 2015, 09:10:27 PM »
Pat:


The environment dictates how much water is necessary. It is not realistic to just say shut off the water. Supers need the tools to do it and keep their job. Moronic members want green. I believe you can have green and F&F.


Berge

Peter Pallotta

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2015, 09:21:30 PM »
Patrick - I agree with you, i.e. the turf should play firm and fast, and playing surfaces should be akin to the standard inflation (lbs) of a basketball.  But as your own opening posts indicates, not all courses -- not even a perennial top 10s -- seem to agree with that same "standard". James says f&f is a matter of choice and commitment; indeed it is. But it is clearly not a choice and commitment that many courses/supers are making (as I assume that most superintendents are good at their jobs and would actually know how to achieve it if they wanted to). So the question is: Why? And i don't think we can get to the golfing world you'd like to see -- where f&f is the norm -- until the industry has a frank and even brutal discussion about why.
Peter

Mark Pavy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2015, 10:00:54 PM »
How 'bout we just make the courses out of synthetic grass so we have the same setup each and every game. Whilst we're at it, why not erect a great big dome over the entire course so we can control the air temperature and wind. A huge part of golf is to be able to read the ever changing conditions, maybe learn this skill and stop bleating on about firm and fast.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #12 on: September 06, 2015, 06:55:21 AM »
Mark,

Evidently you don't understand the concept/s behind the premise.
Please review/reread what preceded your post.

Then, think in terms of the application of water not supplied by Mother Nature.

Peter,

I was using the inflate pressure as a "minimum" standard.

I suspect that most are totally unfamiliar with golf course maintenance before the advent of automated irrigation systems, along with the imposition of drought restrictions pre automation.

BCowan

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #13 on: September 06, 2015, 08:01:47 AM »
You can't have a discussion about conditioning without focusing on trees, grasses and bunkers. My position (as an accountant not agronomist):


Tree removal opens up the land to wind which allows drier conditions that play faster.


Greens that are largely annual bluegrass (poa annua) are extremely vulnerable to disease, particularly in hot conditions. Supers need to pour on the water to reduce this risk resulting in soft greens. If I were them I would too. No quicker way to lose your job than lose the greens. Course that invest in drainage and the new bents have a huge advantage in achieving firm greens. Of course, bent doesn't grow in the shade so trees that shade greens must be removed.


I believe bunkers should be consistent. Yes, I know they are hazards but lets give the 99% of us the chance to save par with a good recovery shot and putt.

Berg,

Spot on.  Tree removal is one of the big elephants in the room.  Also club manufacturers making too strong a loft in fairway woods.  Then avg golfer complains about the tight fairways.

The solution isn't top down industry driven.  Non member owned is the easiest way to achieve firm and fast.  If u attack over watering from environmental standpoint ull get less support.  Firm and fast is more fun. 

Rtj, jn, and a few others modern day designers have designed courses that don't fit well with firm and fast conditions imo. 

From photos i really like the aussie maint. Meld.  I really like how they don't seem to water the rough, how the US was 25 years ago
« Last Edit: September 06, 2015, 08:05:02 AM by Ben Cowan (Michigan) »

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #14 on: September 06, 2015, 02:21:19 PM »
Patrick -

I don't know the answer, but I think your concluding sentence is very telling and relevant to the discussion, i.e. What's a reasonable expectation for the playing surfaces given normal weather conditions?" [bold, mine].

You did not ask the question in terms of given "budgetary constraints" or the anticipated "target market" a differing "ethos of the game" or factoring in "modern-day golfers' expectations" -- all of which I'd suggest are just as realistic factors vis-a-vis playing surfaces as your "weather conditions".

My own approach to an ideal maintenance meld is influenced by such other factors as Peter mentions.  Probably why I didn't respond to Pat's other thread is because the initial golfer's criticism of the conditioning is so commonplace.  We hear comments like this every day year after year.  We lose customers and repeat business all the time to other courses that privately I might call "grass factories" with conditioning for the "chlorophyll addicts."  There can be no denying the fact that some golfers prefer lush, green, overwatered, over fertilized, courses.  They just do and nothing will convince them otherwise.  It's what they know and expect (in the USA).

As I've said many times before, our approach to conditioning is based more on (paraphrasing the Old Doc) "providing the most pleasurable excitement for the greatest number of golfers" than providing some ideal conditioning standard for out sand based turf.  Our course plays beautifully fast and firm with full pallet of colors and, depending on weather, we play this way for about half the year:  late fall, winter, early spring.  However, many of our golfers don't embrace this conditioning as ideal even if it seems to me to better suit their games or provide a more interesting version of the game.  It's also a fact that if we have a mild winter with lots of play, there is a tremendous amount of wear and tear to the turf (yes, we allow carts).  So, when spring comes around and we can grow grass and repair the turf, we do.  The chlorophyll addicts are ecstatic and we get the most complements on the conditioning.  What do we say to them?  "You don't know what you're talking about or understand proper golf?"  That doesn't go down very well because these are the same guys who have played all winter on what many of us would call ideal playing surfaces.  To them the lack of irrigation and growing, healthy grass is just conditioning compromised by the season and weather.

So, if you are in charge of running a golf business and you need these guys to enjoy their golf and keep giving you their business, what do you do?  Tell them to go someplace else because they don't get it?  Set up your course conditioning to some ideal standard for enlightened golfers and ignore the wishes of, in my view, a majority of your customers?  Let me assure you these golfers will vote with their wallets and play their golf where their buddies play and where they perceive they get biggest bang for their buck.  Or do you compromise, as you must with the weather, and try to provide the best conditions for the greatest number of golfers in your area or market?  And what do you do when there are more courses than there are golfers to fill them, as seems to be the case with many regions in the US, home to approximately half the golf courses on Earth?

Theoretical discussions about ideal maintenance melds are fine and I'm all for them.  I personally agree with many of the views in this DG and enjoy different versions of the game.  When I am asked what are my favorite courses, I rattle off a modest list of the usual suspects, almost always links or firm and fast courses that are more difficult or challenging than my own.  These are courses that are walkable and don't get beat up by golf carts.  That's just my preference and a product of my interest in architecture, traveling and seeing different versions of the game. Since I do enjoy different styles of golf, I also keep in mind there are many ways to enjoy the game and an infinite amount of personal preferences in which to do so.               

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #15 on: September 06, 2015, 03:58:15 PM »
Let's assume there are two exactly the same layout 18-hole courses positioned side by side within the same golf facility.


One of the courses is green and lush and heavily watered with soft greens. A great deal of fertiliser is used and the course has a big maintenance crew and lots of machinery.


The other course is dry, firm and fast and is generally maintained in what I might term a minimalist manner.


Let's further assume that the green lush course costs twice as much in upkeep and the greenfee is twice the price to play as its firm and fast brother.


I reckon I know which course most GCA posters would play for choice but which one do you believe would be used more by golfers at large? Remember the lush greenfee course is double the cost to play of the f&f course. 50%-50% split or some other percentage?


Atb

Mark Pavy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #16 on: September 06, 2015, 04:05:01 PM »
Mark,

Evidently you don't understand the concept/s behind the premise.
Please review/reread what preceded your post.

Then, think in terms of the application of water not supplied by Mother Nature.

Pardon me, but aren't you the old narc having a sook about playing conditions in your opening post?




Alister Matheson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #17 on: September 06, 2015, 04:47:58 PM »
A lot of posts from the USA harp on and on and on about f&f , surely the GCA faithfull are spreading the gospel by now . Education .


Normal Weather ! An old greenkeeper once told me there is no such thing as normal when it comes to the weather.


The last two summers on the East coast of Scotland have been wet , not great for f&f.Courses have been an emerald green colour but this is completely natural it's what Mother Nature is dictating.
Greenkeepers use all their skills to condition courses as best as weather conditions and club resources allow .
I sadly have not been to many golf courses in the USA but with the standard of education over there I would be surprised if overwatering was commonplace .


Over here in the UK I have to say it is becoming rare IMO to see over irrigated golf courses , Plenty are being over watered but you would have to speak to the man upstairs about that .
Cruden Bay Links Maintenance Blog

http://crudenbaylinks.blogspot.com/

Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #18 on: September 06, 2015, 05:16:02 PM »
Alister I played one multi course country club near NY last year that was definitely over watered, shame is the GM loved the links conditions he found over here a couple of years back.
Cave Nil Vino

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #19 on: September 06, 2015, 05:43:59 PM »
Alister,

I agree with your comment on education. The issue here in the USA is finding anyone who wants to do things differently than they have been done for the past few decades. There is no understanding of grass surviving without added water, and there certainly is no one willing or able to teach it. 40 years ago you could find turf on golf courses that was able to survive the drought times of the season, but I'm afraid that those grasses are long gone...and why everyone here thinks it impossible. Watering wall to wall at the slightest signs of distress is a sure way to be water dependent as a turf grower.
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #20 on: September 06, 2015, 05:55:12 PM »
Patrick - I agree with you, i.e. the turf should play firm and fast, and playing surfaces should be akin to the standard inflation (lbs) of a basketball.  But as your own opening posts indicates, not all courses -- not even a perennial top 10s -- seem to agree with that same "standard". James says f&f is a matter of choice and commitment; indeed it is. But it is clearly not a choice and commitment that many courses/supers are making (as I assume that most superintendents are good at their jobs and would actually know how to achieve it if they wanted to). So the question is: Why? And i don't think we can get to the golfing world you'd like to see -- where f&f is the norm -- until the industry has a frank and even brutal discussion about why.
Peter


Absolutely. And this is exactly why I am happy to bang the 'education, education, education' drum as often as is needed. Until the issue is clearly out there in the open for all to debate, and god only knows that debate is going to upset the apple cart all around the world, assumed wisdom will be that f&f is a mark of low quality.
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Conditioning
« Reply #21 on: September 06, 2015, 06:20:30 PM »
I absolutely believe that only the very top players like soft fairways. Nearly every golfer wants to hit the ball further and firm fairways allow for this.  The debate is if green fairways are more important to golfers than firm fairways.  A friend commented to me yesterday about how beautiful and green the bermuda rough was at a course he played recently so I asked him if a little brown would be okay if it meant firmer fairways and the ball going further - of course he wanted the ball going further.  I know that modern equipment has allowed us to hit the ball further but I think most people who have been playing a course for a long time remember hitting it further in years past and that is more a factor of conditioning as opposed to a player's age.


The USGA has a campaign about playing it forward - is this to pander to the "green is better crowd?"

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #22 on: September 06, 2015, 06:24:47 PM »
Mark,

Evidently you don't understand the concept/s behind the premise.
Please review/reread what preceded your post.

Then, think in terms of the application of water not supplied by Mother Nature.

Pardon me, but aren't you the old narc having a sook about playing conditions in your opening post?
 
Mark,
 
Have someone with a scintilla of reading comprehension explain my opening post to you.
 
Obviously, you don't have a clue


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #23 on: September 06, 2015, 06:33:04 PM »

I absolutely believe that only the very top players like soft fairways. Nearly every golfer wants to hit the ball further and firm fairways allow for this. 
 
 
 
Jerry,
 
Agreed.
 
I think that's a universal, yet, soft conditions impede that ambition. 
 
In a strangely contrarian position, the golfer's world tends to support "lush, green" conditions which will restrict the individual's ability to hit the ball further
 
The debate is if green fairways are more important to golfers than firm fairways.  A friend commented to me yesterday about how beautiful and green the bermuda rough was at a course he played recently so I asked him if a little brown would be okay if it meant firmer fairways and the ball going further - of course he wanted the ball going further. 
 
When you ask golfers, individually, what they prefer, they opt, almost universally, for more distance, yet, whether it's group think or a matter of favoring "the look", many, if not most, clubs opt for the visual rather than the performance factor.
 
I know that modern equipment has allowed us to hit the ball further but I think most people who have been playing a course for a long time remember hitting it further in years past and that is more a factor of conditioning as opposed to a player's age.

The USGA has a campaign about playing it forward - is this to pander to the "green is better crowd?"

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Conditioning
« Reply #24 on: September 06, 2015, 06:36:02 PM »
A lot of posts from the USA harp on and on and on about f&f , surely the GCA faithfull are spreading the gospel by now . Education .


Normal Weather ! An old greenkeeper once told me there is no such thing as normal when it comes to the weather.


The last two summers on the East coast of Scotland have been wet , not great for f&f.Courses have been an emerald green colour but this is completely natural it's what Mother Nature is dictating.
Greenkeepers use all their skills to condition courses as best as weather conditions and club resources allow.

I sadly have not been to many golf courses in the USA but with the standard of education over there I would be surprised if overwatering was commonplace.

SURPRISE !
 
Sadly, it's commonplace.

Over here in the UK I have to say it is becoming rare IMO to see over irrigated golf courses , Plenty are being over watered but you would have to speak to the man upstairs about that .