[A_Clay_Man]

What do all you industry people think about a marketing campaign that would emphasize firm and fast?

Would such a claim bring the clientel back to a course that was heretofore losing market share and just so happens to be designed for it?

[Bill_McBride]

From a non-industry but marketing experienced perspective, I think such a campaign would unfortunately reflect poor demographic research.  Seems to me that 99% of American golfers prefer soft greens so they can fruitlessly try to hit shots that back up.  "Firm and fast" is wonderful to a few, but "lush and green" is the preference of the vast majority of American golfers.  Now perhaps an educational campaign on the benefits of firm and fast........  

[A_Clay_Man]

Bill- Isn't there a trend developing that F&F is taking over?
My thoughts are that several of the new up and comers that have hit the top 100 lists are playing F&F. Or, is that just the raters who make up the 1 % ?

[Matt Dupre]

Adam,

Any marketing campaign for firm and fast would really have to segment for those "in the know" and "agreeing" with those type of conditions.  Unfortunately, Bill's right - most of the mass marketing for golf courses and destinations (i.e. Myrtle Beach) is aimed at the lowest common denominator - which still wants lush, green, soft, green, manicured, green...you get my drift.  

Even the upscale destinations like Pinehurst, Kohler, Kiawah etc. focus on the courses, the architects, the amenities, the tournament history et.al. over the conditions golfers are likely to face.  If any course did try and market F&F, they'd most likely get a small group of devotees at the expense of the masses who most likely would decide that the course was too hard - literally and figuratively!

I market a service business, and the issues are very similar.

Matt

[TEPaul]

My limited experiences tell me that a return to firm and fast, particularly on certain types of designs, logically those whose architecture and available originally designed options are  more reliant on firm and fast conditions (ie the ground game) would definitely inspire a renewed interest in those courses. And probably the maintenance industry should market that fact.

However, nothing is quite that simple. The first obstacle is the fear amongst general memberships of damaging or killing the agronomy and also the continued resistance to anything other a particular shade of  green grass.

But if a club can get over that first hurdle, my experiences tell me, without question, almost without exception, memberships love the playability of firm and fast conditions generally speaking!  But even that comes with plenty of caveats. Everyone seems to like to see the ball bounce and rollout but the lies, a consistency of maybe a much lighter green does need to be maintained well too because things like the tighter lies of firm and fast conditions really do bother some golfers, particularly not very good golfers. And unfortunately accomplishing that balance is nowhere near as simple as shutting off the water or even dialing it down significantly.

Not to mention the fact that every golf course has soil conditions that can be remarkably different than other courses (even nearby) and that can make accomplishing a certain ideal firm and fast playability immensely complicated if not nearly impossible (everything obviously revolves around expense).

The first thing to do is to get memberships to begin to understand the "concept" of the playability of firm and fast and what it can mean to their games. The next step, if they buy into the first, is to figure out how to do it on any particular course. That part is going to take some really good communication and understanding on the part of all involved--ie memberships and maintenance. Obviously, in all this is the fundamental fact that grass is a living thing and needs time to be conditioned to another maintenance process and possible a far different extreme on the spectrum.

I'm not an agronomist but to get grass to go from its longtime condition of soft and slow (generally shallow root structure) to firm and fast basically the root structure needs to be made to generate deeper roots somehow and that can be complex in certain places and situations. Irrigation needs to perk down to a lower level and various forms of compaction (hydrophobia) can prevent perking and root depth. But I guess one could say if the irrigation water can perk down some more the roots will follow it looking for that water.

If that can be done and the membership buys into the "concept" of the interesting playabilities of firm and fast, I think some of us can guarantee any membership that they will love what it can do for their increased interest and enjoyment though.

But like anything it takes the grass time to get used to another process and all this can't be done overnight anyway.

Natural rainfall changes all this too and any member has to understand that obvious fact. But it seems to me that most any course should not really be soft and slow when there hasn't been natural rainfall and after natural rainfall the course and its maitenance practices should use a process where that course (and its agronomy) rebounds back to firm and fast as soon as it possibly can and stays that way until the next natural deluge.

[TEPaul]

There's another thing that I think should also be stressed right off the bat when talking to anybody anywhere about the entire subject of firm and fast.

That is to break the entire subject into two distinct parts;

1. The green surfaces
2. "Through the green"

It's never a good idea to be talking about them at the same time and always be lumping them together.

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- Of course I am thinking of the Meld and specifically my home course. Especially my home course where the annual percip is 7in. so the rain issue is not applicable 99% of the time. I do think the perfect combo would be fairway landing areas for the above average distance hitter should be softer, but for short knockers, the added roll to get nearer to a preferable length, that thier natural abilities don't allow for, would equailize the game in a similar way a handicap does. Also, runway aprons, adjacent moundings or other kickplate options should be firm or at least shaved while the green is softer. To me, that would be what 'we' call ideal. Ideal for all levels of ability and levels of playing surfaces preferences.

Having had failed experiences with trying to make everyone happy, I think this would come close.

[TEPaul]

"I do think the perfect combo would be fairway landing areas for the above average distance hitter should be softer, but for short knockers, the added roll to get nearer to a preferable length, that thier natural abilities don't allow for, would equailize the game in a similar way a handicap does"

That's something I don't think I would advocate. Methods of handicapping are fairly efficient in other ways. This whole concept of rejuvenating firm and fast is complex enough and the consistencies of surface are part of recognized proper maintenance practices in all of golf. Architecture itself, if well enough done, can allow various golfers to use that architecture to offset and work themselves around various disadvantages etc--ie the rabbit and hare analogy in architecture. I really don't think maintenance practices need to get into trying to "handicap" those architectural interests and distinctions.

William Flynn actually thought of a unique maintenance practice somehat like that but it had nothing to do with trying to even things out (handicapping) amongst the levels of golfers. He only recommeded it because he was so concerned about how far the ball might go.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tepaul- I can see where you wouldn't advocate that equalization but seriously how often do you get out with us little people?
There are so many people who love and play golf and do so badly. They just want to have fun and chase that monkey of a good shot or a long drive. I see them struggle against the conditions which don't suit thier game, and I think they probably make up a majority of the demographic, that any profit oriented enterprise would want.

So why not market 'em?

All this talk about changing the ball because of the top 1% why not focus on the majority?

[Bill_McBride]

Adam, your concept of soft for long hitters and firm for short hitters sounds like the Valderamma 17th hole set up at the Ryder Cup!  (i.e. a cut of rough at 290 to throttle back the US boomers!).  

[John_Conley]

For a real-world example of the perils of marketing to people like us, take Cuscowilla near Lake Oconee, Georgia.

Acclaimed by critics, it still struggles financially in comparison to the courses at Reynolds - Great Waters, Plantation, National, Oconee, etc...

[TEPaul]

Adam:

I'm all for firm and fast conditions, I just don't think it's a good concept to firm up the parts of a course you'd expect lesser quality players to land the ball and soften up the parts of a course you'd expect better players to land the ball in some attempt to handicap. There's a better way to handicap than that.

But the true beauty of really firm and fast conditions "through the green" is it does make it more fun for less accomplished  golfers simply because their ball goes further. But the interesting thing is it often has the opposite effect on the games of very good players. Very firm and fast conditions "through the green" actually puts more pressure on very good players than soft conditions "through the green" do.

But in my opinion, the necessary little addition to all this for good players is to firm up those green surfaces (not necessarily green speed just green surface firmness) to that necesssary extent to which very good players cannot always rely on aerial approaches holding greens the way they've become used to.  That's the only conceivable way to get good players to even consider ground game options. If you have very receptive green surfaces and very firm conditions elsewhere you will never get a good player to use the ground game options. Why would a very good player try that if he can depend on the aerial approach all day long?

[Mark_Huxford]

Adam, here's an article I pulled off Mike Clayton's web site http://www.claytongolf.com.au a while ago when we were discussing Poa. It's written by one of Mike's turf gurus, John Sloan. I think more golfers would go for firmer conditions if it was a by-product of better turf.

Overwatering - the Number 1 Pitfall.
An article by John Sloan.

Recent articles in Golf Course Management magazines from the United States of America and the UK detail the 10 most common pitfalls of Golf Course Maintenance, complied by the USGA Greens Section agronomists, who visit nearly 1,700 different golf courses each year. The list is:-

1. Communication and Public Relations
2. Overwatering
3. Fast Green Speeds
4. Use of Pesticides
5. Continuity of Course Officials / Greens Chairpersons
6. Pesticide storage and / or maintenance buildings
7. Tree Management
8. Amount of Play
9. Labour: not enough and/or under qualified
10. Equipment: not enough and / or poor quality

This list or slight variations to it would likely be the same the world over, for apart from specific local problems, the principles of Golf Course Management are similar in most locations. If I was compiling a list of the most common pitfalls, number one would definitely be overwatering, for if there is a single common theme that quickly destroys turfgrass and playing conditions, it is the chronic misuse of irrigated water.

One of the great ironies of nature is that too much water is as detrimental as too little water and this fact is extremely pertinent to Golf Course Management where overwatering is a serious problem, not only from a turfgrass point of view, but also and more importantly, from a playing aspect.

Overwatering of Golf Courses is not ecologically or financially viable. Overwatered turfgrass is shallow rooted, requires more fertilisers, pesticides, mowing and aerification with the end result being poor and inconsistent playing conditions. So why are a large percentage of our courses being overwatered?

1. Player Pressure: A poorly struck shot will hold a wet, soft putting green more easily than a firm one and unfortunately there is a great deal of pressure placed on those in charge of golf courses to provide conditions which are sympathetic to poor shotmaking. The game commonly referred to as "Target Golf" is very much entrenched into a lot of golf clubs thinking.

2. Turfgrass Misconceptions: The more water one gives the turf, the shallower and weaker the root system becomes, the more water it then requires to survive - this is the overwatering treadmill. I recently visited a country Victorian Golf Course which, in my opinion, had been chronically overwatered for many years. The club asked what they could do to improve the playing conditions on the course, which were soft in free draining soils, unstable due to shallow root systems and unnaturally green because of the overuse of nitrogen based fertilisers. The simple answer to the club's immediate problem was to locate the on/off switch to the watering system and turn it firmly to the off position! The golf club was understandably concerned with this recommendation because "You would not believe the hot days we get up here". This is all the more reason why the club should dry the turf out, promote appropriate turfgrass, establish deep, solid root systems and let the players enjoy the benefits of playing on bouncy firm surfaces.

3. The Colour Green: We have become obsessed with the colour green, in particular that lush Augusta green and we mistakenly are led to believe that because it is lush green, it must be healthier than less greener grass. When I see lush green grass I think the golf course is overwatered, overfertilised and must cost a lot of money to maintain. Let us go back to playing golf on tough grass, not on green colour masquerading as a quality surface, for it takes little skill and foresight to overfertilise and overwater weeds, stripe cut them and pretend it is a quality surface. Our Golf Courses and golf would be far better off if the green was a little duller and we loved a little brown in our turfgrass.

To overcome the overwatering pitfall a sensible common sense approach to Golf Course Management is required. This may seem to be oversimplifying the problem but I think common sense is one of the first things forgotten when dealing with overwatering. Don't irrigate to satisfy the driest areas of your course, these areas require specific treatments, such as hand watering. Select and encourage turfgrasses which suit your area, don't artificially support poor quality, poor selected turf. Inspect your course regularly to ascertain watering requirements, no one can make that judgement except a suitably qualified person. Allow the turfgrass to "stress", make it hurt, and teach it that if it is going to be part of your clubs future turfgrass, it is going to have to toughen up, or find another place to reside.

The other big problem in coming to terms with overwatering is actually recognising that it is occurring. But it is safe to suggest that there are mote overwatered golf courses around than under watered ones, particularly in reference to the greens and tees. Who knows! Those problem wet areas on your course may just be chronic overwatering and those boggy Winter conditions just irrigation abuse during Summer and Autumn. So, if the only difference between playing your course in Summer or Winter is that in Winter you wear a jumper, do your golf and your turfgrass a favour, and closely examine your irrigation procedures.

John Sloan.
johnsloan@claytongolf.com.au

[Slag Bandoon]

Adam, I've been wondering how to market H+F for a long time.  All I generally do is talk about its benefits when I'm golfing to other golfers hoping for a glint of interest. (Mental note to self... Sign up for ToastMasters.)

I remember we talked about this a little in the Wild Horse clubhouse after we looked at the "Best Modern List" that they had on the wall.  If owners are so keen to get their babies on the "Best" lists, why don't they follow the lead of some of those course that do garner respect?  I can't remember the list but there were quite a few at the top noted for H+F maintenance practices.  

Optimistically, there's many more now than were around 10 years ago.  Perhaps the word and value is growing in appreciatiation.  

Mark, Thanks for posting that article by Mr. Sloan.  Printed gem.

  

[SL_Solow]

For a glimpse of reality, see today's post on overrated courses.  Mr. Yun of Golf Mag, in his critique of Pinehurst, complains about repairing his ballmark near the pin and then going to hit his next shot 50 feet away.  Sounds like firm and fast to me and a major magazine uses it as an excuse to downgrade a classic.  Notwithstanding my personal preferences, it doesn't sound like a safe marketing approach for a course catering to the mass market.  The membership of a private club may be susceptible if properly educated.

[TEPaul]

To try to market firm and fast conditions the best way I've found is to push the point that firm and fast conditions "through the green" generally have the amazing effect of giving more pleasure to lesser quality golfers while at the same time putting some additional pressure on good players (additional pressure over soft conditions "through the green" for good players).

However, I've always said that the key to the "ideal maintenance meld" on most classic ground game style courses is to firm up those green surfaces to that exact point where good players become a bit unsure about controling their aerial approach shots--and consequently less reliant on their aerial game. (As an aside, that exact point is the point when any player probably wouldn't even need to look for his pitch mark--as the ideal green firmness produces never more than a light dent, if that, to aerial shots (with no dirt coming up).

But in all honesty this "ideal maintenance meld" is designed  for the good player maybe almost exclusively. The sad fact is if the reliablity of controlling their approach shots is dialed down to the point where good players start thinking about other options (some kind of ground game compromise) the less accomplished player may have almost zero reliability of controlling an aerial approach shot! And clearly those less accomplished players are not going to like that at all.

The truth would then be that the best option for the less accomplished player would probably become some form of the ground game approach almost all day.

So it's to be expected that American golfers who aren't very accomplished will bitch at the "ideal maintenance meld" for good players. We could try to tell them that many of the less accomplished golfers in Europe have been able to accept this condition and deal with it for years--but will American golfers listen to that logic?

[TEPaul]

Slag:

Here's another potentially simple way to successfully market firm and fast maintenance. When someone resists just ask them if they'd like to have the course play something like Oakmont. If they say, "Of course", just tell them that this is where it starts!

[RDecker]

Firm and fast in the context of what was fast in the classical era needs to be considered.  A fast green today is 11 or 12 where as in the 40's lets say 7 or 8 would've been.  Firm and fast will only work if mowing heights are raised and people are willing to accept different shades of grass not just dark green.
In the olden days golf had many different hues and T.V. will be a huge obstacle in getting back to that.  People only want to see dung colored turf for one weekend a year in July, in Great Britain.

[TEPaul]

RDecker:

When considering and discussing firm and fast conditions of a golf course the stimpmeter reading of the greens should not be considered much, if at all. That's an entirely different subject. On the subject of firm and fast conditions the subject should be looked at as;

1. "through the green"
2. The firmness of the green surfaces (not the stimp reading)

[RDecker]

The Stimpmeter reading is just a small part of the problem.
It seems to me that the issue of the golfers visual perception as dictated by what he or she sees on the TV is going to be a hard thing to change and until a major shift in philosophy occurs at the PGA level agronomically there will never be sweeping changes below.

[RDecker]

I guess I hit "post" to soon:  One possible develpment that may make Firm and fast a reality without any struggle would be the implementation of water usage restrictions at the state and federal level.  Such restrictions are very close to happening in some locations and will probably be a reality in the not too distant future.  Irrigation systems will all but be illegal to use and handwatering will be the method of choice.
More drought tolerant turf will require firm and fast to be the only option and the ground game will be what the Butch Harmons and David Ledbetters will be touting on the Golf channel.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'll disagree with post #19 RD. The TV shows us brown turf more here in the states than we see in August, from across the pond. Look at Pebble this week, all the areial camera shots show a green green grass. But when you get a ground level shot you can see the brown hue that is making it firm. Even if the conditions weren't firm that brown hue is often there at Pebble. Two reasons for it 1. They use reclaimed water and 2. The clay that makes up most of the soil on the Peninsula causes LDS and that makes the brown spots evident in all but chocolate pudding mode.

People have no choice but to play the course as they find it, but they do have a choice on whether they will ever come back. At $350/rnd. and a full tee sheet, I think people will put up with alot.

To me the best solution is to rotate the conditions from say month to month. One month G is G, the next H&F. This seems like a proper solution for all concerned, especially the turd.

[Slag Bandoon]

But in all honesty this "ideal maintenance meld" is designed for the good player maybe almost exclusively.  

... best option for the less accomplished player would probably become some form of the ground game approach almost all day.

  If a neophyte like me can appreciate H+F, why should we believe that poorer players won't enjoy a higher interest in the playing fields by being exposed to those conditions?
  
 Your second (quoted) statement makes it sound like H+F is a bad thing.  We can handle it... give us a chance.  
On the Yardage Guide for Talking Stick North there is a quote/suggestion by the pro for the advent of the chip and run shot for lower scores.  It's a simple statement of advice and is a defiant disclaimer to neo-traditional soft and sticky conditions.

[TEPaul]

"If a neophyte like me can appreciate H+F, why should we believe that poorer players won't enjoy a higher interest in the playing fields by being exposed to those conditions?
 
Your second (quoted) statement makes it sound like H+F is a bad thing.  We can handle it.."

Slag:

I don't mean to make it sound like a bad thing at all. I'm simply stating what I think is a reality. It's just another problem and concern that hopefully can be overcome somehow. I believe that less accomplished player would just love F&F conditions "through the green" but when green surfaces are maintained to that  degree of firmness that's necessary to dial down the reliability of aerial approaches for very good players to the proper point essentially less accomplished players would have very little to no ability to stop an aerial approach on most green surfaces.

I'm certainly not saying that's a bad thing but one must recognize that would then basically only leave less accomplished players with some form of ground game approach almost exclusively. I'd love to see all golfers accept that kind of green surface firmness but just ask any super anywhere who has offered that degree of green surface firmness to less accomplished players and I'm certain he would tell you they complain about being unable to stop their aerial shots on the green.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Tommy, so we perpetuate the pro game and pander to the aerial game of novices.  I am a novice and I find the ground game fascinating.  I'd rather shoot a higher score on a FnF course than shoot a low score on a chocolate cake or one designed for soft green maintenance.  I can't be the only hack that feels this way.  Can I?   I want FnF "through the green" as well, and I MUST! include the aprons in that as well, but why should we stop there?  The hacks won't be educated through books as to the value of FnF, they must be exposed to it. (Sadly, not many people really read these days anyway.)  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()