[Charlie Goerges]

A couple of questions on a course with a permanent fairway height of cut of greater than or equal to 1 inch and a stimp reading of less than or equal to 8...


Would you join/frequent such a course?


Architects, how would you design such a course differently (if at all)?




Edit: ...And supers, what would maintenance be like assuming a goal of firm and bouncy?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Sounds fine to me, but I think you could get the fairways below an inch just by allowing animals to glaze on the plot.

Edit: I guess it also depends on the type of grass. An inch of dormant bermuda is barely noticeable, whereas an inch of kikuyu can be an annoyance.

[Charlie Goerges]

Sounds fine to me, but I think you could get the fairways below an inch just by allowing animals to glaze on the plot.

I'm sure you could, but I'm saying (in this case) let's not. Would you accept the conditioning? And given that conditioning, what kind of features would you like to see?




I'd want more contour everywhere, the longer turf should keep balls from gathering in all the low spots... and so on.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Greens stimping at 8 are quite a regular occurrence on links courses. Whereas fairway cuts of over 1 inch would take away a large amount of interest and choice around the greens, regardless of how much contour you add (on links courses).


Would be perfectly fine with longer fairway cuts on courses that play less firm and fast regardless

[Sean_A]

A couple of questions on a course with a permanent fairway height of cut of greater than or equal to 1 inch and a stimp reading of less than or equal to 8...


Would you join/frequent such a course?


Architects, how would you design such a course differently (if at all)?

Edit: ...And supers, what would maintenance be like assuming a goal of firm and bouncy?

No, I don’t think I would join or play often unless the course was seriously fun…probably of the shortish and hilly variety and cheap.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

    There’s a golf term for such a course - cow pasture.

[Thomas Dai]

The question is also what’s the alternative?
It’s pretty much the equivalent of what I used to play on with my mates in the field behind our folks houses when I we were 5-10 yrs old. Good fun as I recall. Indeed a Stimp of 8 would have been extremely generous!
Atb

[Charlie Goerges]

It's funny, those conditions were fairly common within the lifetimes of many on this board.


Maybe the game would be too easy hitting off 1" fairways?

[Mike Hendren]

These courses are the standard in small towns across the South. I learned the game on one.  Most are 9 holes.


There’s another world out there that most members of the treehouse are not familiar with and likely don’t care about.  Many are “private” and homemade.

[Dan McCallum]

two courses that come to mind like this are in Michigan: Diamond Springs and Champion Hill; two places I thoroughly enjoy.  I think keys to making a course like this fun are i) firm conditions, especially the greens and approaches, ii) large green contours and green surrounds contours, and iii) interesting pin placements.  I am no agronomist, but it seems like longer fairway grass and slower greens (fescue?) should be conducive to lesser inputs and cheaper maintenance.  I would love to see more courses like this, but do worry too many people may be turned off by these conditions (under either a private or public model), even though the playing surface is much superior than to that of a lush green course.

[Kalen Braley]

Dan,

I'm curious on your post, do you know of a course that has these conditions?  One could exist, but every course I've ever played with long/shaggy fairways was always soft or (played soft with the longer grass).

This may be in the same category as the mythical slow greens (6 or less) that also putt smooth and true.

[Buck Wolter]

two courses that come to mind like this are in Michigan: Diamond Springs and Champion Hill; two places I thoroughly enjoy.  I think keys to making a course like this fun are i) firm conditions, especially the greens and approaches, ii) large green contours and green surrounds contours, and iii) interesting pin placements.  I am no agronomist, but it seems like longer fairway grass and slower greens (fescue?) should be conducive to lesser inputs and cheaper maintenance.  I would love to see more courses like this, but do worry too many people may be turned off by these conditions (under either a private or public model), even though the playing surface is much superior than to that of a lush green course.

I really like Champion Hill but last June I swear the greens were a 4-5, like putting on a brillo pad.

[Dan McCallum]

Kalen - Diamond Springs is pretty much one height of cut (other than native areas), somewhere between what most people would traditionally call "fairway" height and "first cut" height.  One added benefit of this is that it's hard to generate a lot of spin off this surface, which makes the greens play even firmer.  I haven't played Champion Hill in a few years but recall similar fairway height and playing surface.

[SL_Solow]

I know that I am getting old but I can remember when first rate private clubs rarely reached green speeds of 8.  Indeed, our friend Brad Klein published a survey of top private clubs in Chicago circa the early 1980's and only 2 stimped regularly in excess of 8. Trust me when I say that those greens seemed fast at the time.  Watch films of Palmer and Nicklaus and see the length of their strokes.  It is really a question of what one is used to that determines perception of speed.  But slower greens allow for more slope.


I confess that I can't recall fairways as hairy as those posited.

[James Bennett]

I played at a 9 hole holiday island course in the Whitsundays (NE Australia) called South Molle.  It no longer exists.  Executive course length - lots of par 3's and a couple of short par 4's.


All the grass was cut at about 25 mm (about 1 inch).  Greens were small and sloped.


It was impossible to play shots to the green with a 7-iron because there was not enough room on the greens to land a ball and stop it.  Spin was impossible to impart because of the fairway length, and you couldn't run up a ball using the approach because of the velcro nature of 25mm grass.


Golf was an aerial game only, and required a wedge (with skilled play) to get around.


If the height of fairway cut was a half-inch, I might be interested.  Not at 1 inch or over.


James B

[jeffwarne]

A couple of questions on a course with a permanent fairway height of cut of greater than or equal to 1 inch and a stimp reading of less than or equal to 8...


Would you join/frequent such a course?


Architects, how would you design such a course differently (if at all)?




Edit: ...And supers, what would maintenance be like assuming a goal of firm and bouncy?

Green speeds of 8 can be perfectly acceptable and even desirable on a course with interesting contours and could certainly provide way more interesting pin placements on a green. I remember when I went to Long Cove in 1988 and the greens were at 8 and provided an extreme challenge due to the slope, tilt and contours.
So 8 just isn't a real hard pill to swallow at all on well designed greens such as say Palmetto or Old Barnwell-they just would have more pins to use.


But a one inch high fairway is not a recent thing and would mostly make the golf worse.
A couple of the country courses I played in NZ were less unenjoyable due to the fairways being too long.(higher than an inch)


I'm aware of fairways cut at .22 of an inch which is super extreme and not enjoyable variable golf IMHO.
Very hard for mostplayers to get the center of the club at that height and it results in terrible wedge play and resorting to "putting" type shots.
I'm not sure of the exact number and it would depend upon the kind of grass but somewhere between .45 and .75 could certainly work, especially if the water use was minimized.
I inch HOC "COULD" work in extreme drought conditions.(not sure what the Goat is )


So I'd say I could go "6-9" and .50-.75


I play a lot of golf at a course cut to maybe "6" on highly contoured greens and they work perfectly and highlight great putters and expose poor putters.

[Charlie Goerges]

Thanks Jeff and everyone.


I picked an extreme height on purpose and a more reasonable choice might be, say, .75" or somewhat less. I really just want to move discussion of conditioning away from that .22" type of thing to something easier for weaker players while being longer/more resilient so it can be less over-watered and/or less "on-edge".

[jeffwarne]

Thanks Jeff and everyone.


I picked an extreme height on purpose and a more reasonable choice might be, say, .75" or somewhat less. I really just want to move discussion of conditioning away from that .22" type of thing to something easier for weaker players while being longer/more resilient so it can be less over-watered and/or less "on-edge".

agreed completely.
It would just take someone with real world turf experience(and no agenda/demands from members to keep up with the Jones) to explain the optimum height for reducing water usage and increasing bounce, without unduly decreasing roll.
Bounce is great, extreme roll not due to contour, not so great as friction(rough or dead flat) become the only way to stop a ball.

[Thomas Dai]

A larger size and lighter weight ball would sit up better in 1” grass than the current 1.68”, 1.62 oz ball.
Atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()