Jim Arthur

Probably the most influential figure in Uk club golf in the last half centuary.

I wonder if anyone has heard of him.

Wasn't he a greenkeeper/agronomist! Or am i getting confused here...

I think he might be a bit upset being called a greenkeeper [perhaps not].
He was the agronomist to Southerness and then the R&A in the early 1970's.

He single handedly rescued greenkeepers from the un-educated committee men/women who wanted to flood their greens with water and fertilizer to turn fine grass into meadow grassed bogs.

His main paper was called Green is not Great don't know if any of the clever guys on here can provide a link, it is a brilliant read.

Doon,

Not sure if you've seen this; but here's a link to a bit more info on who was, as you rightly say, a very influential and respected figure in golf course (especially green) maintenance over the last forty years or so.

http://www.finegolf.co.uk/about-us/biographies/jim-arthur/

yads

Yes that was the only real info I could find on him. I am not sure people realise how much the fashion for bright green courses with perfect edges affected the architecture of golf courses over the last 40 years or so.

The best example i can think of and one where the changes have been reversed is pinehurst No.2. I know it is not related to Arthur but it is a simple example of how changing the irrigation system can total change a course.

http://pinehurstnumber2.com/


I would argue that the R and A have not set up an open course as truly fast and firm for as far back as I can remember. I love all the shots of the scorched courses back in the 70’s.

Thanks for the link Yads. As Doon suspected, this is another poster who'd never heard of Mr.Arthur.

Doon, Mav, Mac, Yads,
Isn't it strange how agronomy is overlooked amidst all the chatter about course architecture and restoration? I read quite a bit about gca over here and never come across any reference to the subject, let alone what is best for the greens rather than TV. Wonder what he'd've made of SubAir?!
Golf course superintendent/head greenkeeper the person most responsible for the enjoyment, or not, of the game for most golfers.

What was his surname ?

I think agronomy is higly understated when it comes to course design and management. Too much is made of what looks good for the tour and TV and many local clubs try to replicate this as thats what they tink the fans/members want to see/play. When the reality is being perfectly green is not always good as is his paper states. Would love to see an actual copy of it to see what he wrote on the matter.

Surely though architects must have to have an agronomist on the payroll instead of just doing what they think looks good

I was fortunate to spend a bit of time with Jim, he was a great guy who did not take any prisoners.
In the early days he was very controversial almost hated, but he always stood his ground and eventual won folk over.
At one course he was advising he was having a hard time from the greens comittee. 'Those green are practically unplayable, all the members are up in arms' was the comment.
Jim had been shrewd enough to read the competitions board before his meeting. He responded that in the recent club championship the amateur course record had been broken and a dozen or so scores were under par. He then asked them to explain that away.

The thing is with modern irrigation, drainage and watering technologies is the firmness of the ground not whatever you want it to be, assuming of course there are not extreme weather issues?

As we seem to have just witnesses over the Dunhill links, even courses like carnoustie and TOC do not work properly if the soil is not maintained with natural links properties. It would be nice to see the pro’s have to land a shot at least 10 yards short of the green just to keep the ball on the playing surface. The bounce and distribution of the bounces from balls landing short of the green can be an important part of course design if only course owners would let it be.

Fairway bunkers can also be classified as true fairway bunkers if the fairways are firm and of a width that does not leave the bunkers sitting in the rough. How many courses can you think of where the fairway bunkers are actually in the fairway and not sitting surrounded by rough? The thing is the rough will stop a ball going in a bunker, an odd way to toughen up a course.

If the fairways are firm and wide balls will roll towards the bunkers and into them if the player miss hits a shot or fails to read the strategy required. The percentage of shots that will end up in fairway bunkers will increase as the course firms up, thus bringing the strength of fairway bunker strategy back into play. If fairway bunkers are a proper challenge we don’t need knee deep rough and 180 yard carries over water.

I've played links golf all my life and before and after the installation of irrigation on the St.Andrews courses (not that it's ever used)
Not only is it totally seasonal as to how the course will play but also determined by how much rain there has been.
It rained heavily overnight prior to the final day at St.Andrews so whatever you do you weren't going to recreate the links conditions you so seek.

I think we saw from the final day that it would be better to have played it at Carnoustie than St.Andrews.

I was meaning a more long term philosophy when I spoke about choosing the ground conditions for a course. Yes rain might soften the course but you can aim for the course to play fast and firm more often than not assuming normal weather conditions. It seems to me most courses opt for a rather soft set up most of the time, and I include a lot of links courses these days.

One of the great principles of a golf shot is that to impart spin on a ball you have to hit off a fairly tight firm fairway onto a fairly firm green.
Soft greens or fairways that are not tightly mown make it difficult to play 'proper' golf.

Ask most glub golfers what they would like and they will say 'lush' greens and fairways where they can 'get under' the ball easily.

I was once 'carpeted' for having perfect fairways. The members were complaining that they are too closely mown. I told them I would do as instructed so long as it was minuted that it was against my advice.
They soon backed down when the found out that there was a bit of responsibility involved.

Bit harsh Mac, I don't think there has been a summer dry and sunny enough since about 2006 on the East Coast of Scotland to impart the links conditions you would like to see.
Despite being one of the driest regions of the UK it only requires a little bit more rain than usual to change the courses from burnt, hard and yellow, to lush, soft and green and I don't think there's a great deal that greens staff can do about that. Intense summer convective downpours are commonplace and a feature of our "summers" these days and can change course conditions faster than greens staff can respond.

Interesting point SR.

I was playing running links in the spring for a couple of weeks but I think I would have to go back a couple of years before i cam remember a 'fast spell'.

Well yes I guess the weather may have been rather poor over the last 5 years and no doubt my own frustrations at lack of fast and firm conditions come into my thinking. I just wonder if the courses were not so heavily watered we might get the ideal fast links conditions more often. I will admit to not fully understanding agronomy but how did the courses survive in the 19th and early 20th centuries before the invention of sprinklers?

Mac, in my experience at St.Andrews I have never ever seen the irrigation being used ever , except very occasionally where I have seen evidence of greens irrigated in the evenings after micro tining or top dressing which is necessary for year round green conditioning, and judging by how the sprinkler heads are overgrown with grass on the fairways it appears they really aren't ever used. They seem to be as a device on which to attach yardages only.

Scotland has never been a desert or drought area Mac, even in the 18th and 19th centuries, and there will always have been sufficient rain falling on courses, it may be that patterns were such that summers produced harder, faster links in those days, but I don't think it's the case that courses are purposely stopping this from happening, Lush and soft conditions conditions are dictated by the prevailing weather conditions rather than using an irrigation system, at least at St.Andrews.
I've played hard and fast one day, only for it to be soft and lush the next. That's golf I'm afraid.

Sheep and drought.

A lengthy dry spell will kill off meadow grass and the deeper rooted fine leafed bents and fescues will survive.
Meadow grass will take over in warm and wet conditions.
In the early 60's and 70's clubs invested in automatic sprinklers and triplex mowers and greens gradually declined.
The 'folk who know' PGA and Secretaries Association blamed the triplex mowers when the problem was overwatering. Weak willed greenkeepers giving the members what they wanted~soft greens.

Modern greenkeeping machinery is superb and can bypass many of the problems the old greenkeepers had to deal with.

Cant do it at work but I think I can provide photographic evidence of the sprinkler system being used on the TOC in a not particularly dry spell.

Simply because there might have been rain Mac, doesn't mean that sprinklers weren't still required. I'll take your word for it, but there are lots of reasons as to why they might be required.

Courses evolve all the time and demand for play on TOC has never been higher, requirements in 2011 are much different than in 1850 and so different techniques are required to keep the greens in playable conditions and in a good putting standard all year round.

I don't know why it should be the case but the greens of TOC are rarely as good as those on the New course.
The condition of TOC's greens during my club's Spring Meeting were dreadful, it was like the back of a digestive biscuit, whilst the New courses greens were as good as ever.