[John Connolly]

As courses and clubs continue to move away from green, soft and slow and towards brown, firm and fast, the following questions should be addressed:

Is firm and fast the proper conditioning for ALL golf courses or just those in certain environments, e.g. links?

Is firm and fast the proper conditioning for ALL golf courses or just those with suitable architecture?

[John Connolly]

So.... if i read between the lines, you would suggest it doesn't matter the terroir nor the style/architecture, you want F&F?

[John Connolly]

What would be some of the architectural modifications, if any, one would make when converting from an over watered course to one that is firmer? Should bunkers me modified/repositioned so as to be in play more? Should the rough be modified because it may see more action given the increased roll out? Pinning?

I guess what I'm getting at is my suspicion that turf conditioning, to the extent it can be governed, should be related to the hole architecture. As the hole goes, so goes the conditioning. Form following function, if you will.

If that premise is accepted, can one think of a course where the two have become unfortunately uncoupled?

[BCowan]

What would be some of the architectural modifications, if any, one would make when converting from an over watered course to one that is firmer? Should bunkers me modified/repositioned so as to be in play more? Should the rough be modified because it may see more action given the increased roll out? Pinning?

I guess what I'm getting at is my suspicion that turf conditioning, to the extent it can be governed, should be related to the hole architecture. As the hole goes, so goes the conditioning. Form following function, if you will.

+1, well said

[Kyle Casella]

Given the choice between great architecture in a quagmire and 18 holes in a parking lot, I'd choose the latter.  Of course, the answer isn't that simple and this isn't an either/or situation.  In a quagmire, so much more architectural work is necessary just to make a course decent, whereas in a parking lot, less is often more because it doesn't take much to make a hole interesting; if the turf is running, it does that for you.

Hypothetical: it's late Feburary and it's been raining for a week straight in Northern California. You have the option of playing a) Cypress Point or b) a modified 18 in the parking lot of the Costco just up Highway 1. Cypress will play neither firm nor fast. The Costco parking lot will be rock and lightning but there might be a few water hazards. Which do you choose?

At some places firm and fast might not be achievable all the time. I don't think it necessarily makes those places that much less interesting.  Firm and fast is not a one size fits all approach.

[Kyle Casella]

Fair point.  The exception that proves the rule.  If the Costco is on a gentle hillside, I may have to reevaluate, though... 

You should check out the one in Baja then...

[Charlie Gallagher]

    Kyle makes a good point that sometime weather can make an otherwise firm venue play uncharacteristically.
    That being established, I can't think of a course that wouldn't play better if it could be conditioned into firm and fast. Fairway top dressing programs are transforming former bogs into better draining and firmer courses where the ground game becomes an additional option for problem solving. I can think of four clubs that have employed sand to greatly enhance firmness, Bald Peak Colony Club, Worcester CC, Dedham Golf and Polo, and Merion East. All of these properties drain far better than they did a few years ago. I know there are many other courses that are breaking thatch layers by deep aeration and sand top dressing.
   The down side of sand top dressing is expense and spare grass after application. However, the playability and better conditoning that results, makes for much more pleasurable golf in my book.
   Perhaps there is an agronomist among us who can provide additional perspective?

[Tom Allen]

I'm not the agronomist you are looking for.

However, I did want to comment, because I finally got my first chance to play true firm and fast this past weekend:  at Bandon.  I'm used to Bent grass on soggy topsoil over clay here in the Midwest.  I fell in love with firm and fast immediately.  Tough and different to be sure, but clearly better, in my opinion.  My game was not better, but the courses were.

[Paul Gray]

Tom,

Sounds as if you enjoyed your first ever round of golf.   

[Charlie Gallagher]

Tom,
   Your revelation mirrors my own after playing links golf at Lahinch for the first time in my life in 2004. The game went from a two dimensional to three dimensional enterprise within the first 9 holes  of my exposure to a real links.  The next day at Ballybunion I got an even more thorough education on the ground game.
   After 9 days of Ireland golf I came home to my parkland home course. It was quite a letdown.

[Michael Felton]

While I certainly agree that firm and fast is preferable, I think that the course has to still allow you to play in those conditions. Courses that have architectural aspects that prevent the ground game from being played can become unplayable if they are too firm and fast. For example, fronting water hazards or bunkering that wraps around the front of a green. I also think that sharp doglegs become difficult to handle if the ground is too fast. I would certainly rather have the firm and fast and have those things not present, but if they are, then there needs to be a limit on how firm and fast it becomes. If a well struck high shot will hold, then I'm fine with that. I'm thinking Muirfield last year, but with no ground approach feasible. That would be OTT.

[Thomas Dai]

Firm, fast and furious is fine by me, however, I wouldn't go along with it always being suitable - variable climates, seasons, locations and all that. Sometimes appropriate, sometimes not.

Plus the occasional dose of soft and lush and slow makes you realise where your personal preference lies.

I must say what I reckon to be really horrid circumstances to play in -  soft, lush fairways, rough and fringes but with rock hard greens. Now that is truly a vile combination.

atb

[Tom Allen]

Paul and Charlie:  So true.  I found out what "golf" really is (to me, at least).  It is hard, but it is a blast.  I've not putted into too many bunkers before, watched my playing partners on their knees outside of impossibly steep pot bunkers, or putted from 50 yards out. Now I can't wait to hit the links where golf started.

[Paul Gray]

I must say what I reckon to be really horrid circumstances to play in -  soft, lush fairways, rough and fringes but with rock hard greens. Now that is truly a vile combination.

atb

+1

Pinched approaches with rock hard greens. Ridiculous.

Firm and fast is of course the A1 but we're perhaps overlooking the enjoyment gained from playing the game in different seasons. I'm not sure how many American tourists realise this (GCA folk excluded) but a British links hardly plays lightening fast in February.

[Tom_Doak]

Firm and fast is of course the A1 but we're perhaps overlooking the enjoyment gained from playing the game in different seasons. I'm not sure how many American tourists realise this (GCA folk excluded) but a British links hardly plays lightening fast in February.

100% true.  No golf course can or should be maintained in the same condition ALL THE TIME ... that is the unrealistic American ideal.  Golf is an outdoor game, and conditions vary.  But the goal should be to get to firm and fast when the weather allows it.

[John Connolly]

 

Firm and fast is of course the A1 but we're perhaps overlooking the enjoyment gained from playing the game in different seasons. I'm not sure how many American tourists realise this (GCA folk excluded) but a British links hardly plays lightening fast in February.

100% true.  No golf course can or should be maintained in the same condition ALL THE TIME ... that is the unrealistic American ideal.  Golf is an outdoor game, and conditions vary.  But the goal should be to get to firm and fast when the weather allows it.

But from a design standpoint, are holes designed in certain way if firm and fast dominates? What would be done differently architecturally if you knew it was going to be parkland course draining through clay? Would the same gca fundamentals be utilized regardless? That's really the heart of my question.

[Sean_A]

As courses and clubs continue to move away from green, soft and slow and towards brown, firm and fast, the following questions should be addressed:

Is firm and fast the proper conditioning for ALL golf courses or just those in certain environments, e.g. links?

Is firm and fast the proper conditioning for ALL golf courses or just those with suitable architecture?

I am of the opinion that courses should be dried as much as is possible given climate and grass types.  That said, not all courses are suited for fast golf. For instance, a course with a lot of raised greens, especially if they are small, is not suited for fast golf.  There is no problem designing for aerial golf when the climate calls for it - no sense in fighting rain and less than ideal soils.  I am convinced Dr Mac had a wet climate in mind when he designed Cavendish and it works.  Another example, I am not convinced Trump Aberdeen is best played fast (as normal links can do) simply because so many greens are raised.  On these sorts of designs it will require a balancing act to get the right meld for playability purposes.  Then again, I think Trump Aberdeen was designed very much with pro golf in its future. 

Ciao

[Ronald Montesano]

I guess I'm fortunate to find red-haired, blonde, brunette and black-haired women incredibly attractive, as well as those of light and dark skin pigmentation, and ones of svelte, medium and full figure. I feel badly for those who only stand tall for one, narrow type of partner.

[Ronald Montesano]

To answer the question, Juan, don't reposition any hazards until you do a study of shot results. And before you do a study, ask yourself what the purpose of the hazard is in the first place.

If it was placed there for aesthetic purposes, it probably needs to disappear. If it is functional (to keep balls out a greater hazard) it should remain. If it is functional for strategic reasons that may now be obsolete, commence with the study.

[Craig Sweet]

Try firm and fast on a predominately poa course and see what happens....oh, if you have enough money you can make anything work for awhile, but eventually you can't control the outcome.

[Tom_Doak]

But from a design standpoint, are holes designed in certain way if firm and fast dominates? What would be done differently architecturally if you knew it was going to be parkland course draining through clay? Would the same gca fundamentals be utilized regardless? That's really the heart of my question.

Personally, I always try to take into consideration the most extreme conditions I can imagine for a given site, and make the course playable under those conditions.  That may mean I err on the side of it being "too easy" in calm, soft conditions, but better that than the opposite, where many other architects go.

[Josh Stevens]

Alas my track is not firm fast and furious, other than during a tournament - despite the myth, most Australian courses are as pudgy and overwatered as their American counterparts, at least on the fairways (we do tend to leave the rough to its own devices).  There are some exceptions, but I hear that is changing as climate change puts a higher premium on water.  Next 5 years will tell as water is held back bit by bit to see what stress the fairways can handle.

We do however seem reluctant to just let them die.  I used to play Rye a few times a year when I lived up there and it was so stark.  Green and soft in winter, but it died in summer as they had no reticulation - it became almost unplayable, the fairways were faster and firmer than the greens. 

[Paul Gray]

Try firm and fast on a predominately poa course and see what happens....oh, if you have enough money you can make anything work for awhile, but eventually you can't control the outcome.

I'm not sure that I follow.

During a dry British summer last year I played just such a course five days out of seven. An average course, it actually played very well. In fact, my only complaint was about the insistence on watering the fringes along with the greens, thereby switching from firm and fast to green and lush in a matter of inches. Oh, that and the ubiquitous longer grass just short of bunkers.

[John Connolly]

Try firm and fast on a predominately poa course and see what happens....oh, if you have enough money you can make anything work for awhile, but eventually you can't control the outcome.

What does this mean? That if you hold back irrigation, Poa dies?

[John Connolly]

One of the many reasons I posted the topic was because our course has undergone a "restorvation" and we've eliminated much of the rough between fairway bunkers and fairway - tightly mown turf now runs right into them. This change was implemented to bring bunkers more into play. This more exciting interaction between hazard and fairway is best realized when a ball is bounding down the fairway rather than plopping down, or even bouncing backwards, upon it. We'll have to prepare players for a browner aesthetic.

This has been a great thread for me to learn from. What I've taken away from it is that firm, fast and furious is a desirable conditioning in most, if not all courses, even if every hole doesn't call for a low running shot. Perhaps the distillation would be: If the course is firm, you have allowed 2 possible styles of golf. If the course is soft, you allow only 1. Offering up options is indeed at the heart of great architecture and is a requisite for fun golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()