[Troy Alderson]

Why is it that American golfers appear to expect the golf course to adjust to their game, instead of adjusting their game to the golf course?

At the golf course I maintain, we have 2 inch roughs and taller greens than most golf courses in the area.  This is mostly due to a very low budget to American standards.  I do not have enough people on staff to maintain the golf course to American golfer levels.  I get complaints, as other head greenkeepers do, about the greens are too slow and the roughs too tall.  Are the greens ever fast enough for the American golfer?

ALL golfers must accept the golf course they play as it is presented.  No exceptions.  Adjust their game to fit the golf course and stop the complaining.  What most people do not understand is that superintendent's are managing nature, which is impossible to keep consistent day in and day out.  The golf course cannot be that consistent, things change daily.  That is the beauty of the game of golf.

Wake up America, you are ruining the game of golf.  You are placing it out of reach of most Americans.  You are bringing groups of people against men and women that are attempting to provide pleasure and fun and competition to everyone.  American golf is too expensive to maintain long term.  If changes are not made, golf will die for lower income players.

OK, I'm done ranting and feel better.  Any comments?

Troy

[peter_p]

ego

[Dave Bourgeois]

Come play some of the Munis in the Metro NY area (or other areas for that matter) and I think you might feel better.

[Eric Franzen]

No difference here in Sweden, where the $ for the greenfee and memberships are substantially smaller.

Ullna, a course in Stockholm that hosted a couple of ET events in the past, is usually a joy to play in July and August due to the great finish and the kind of quirky/fun layout. The irony is that the greenkeeper there used to be targeted with complaints from some of the older members who thought that the greens were too fast.

So Troy, you might get your fair share of complaints even if you manicure your course like the southern boys with the green jackets. Golfers are individuals with quite individual expectations.

[John_Cullum]

I played World Woods rolling Oaks a couple of days ago for the first time. I thought the course was in very good condition as far as fairways and bunkers, and the grass on the greens was quite healthy, even though we are basically in a drought here. However I came away disappointed because the greens were too slow, in my opinion. WWRO (reputed to be a tribute to Augusta national) has fairly large slopes on most of the greens, but at the slow speeds there was rarely more than 18" of break. It was a shame because the course is quite good architecturally and the conditions were otherwise fine. Since I regularly play about 35 miles away, I know they can do much better with their greens speed, even at this time of year.

[Pete Lavallee]

Sarge,

I was greatly dissapointed at green speeds at WW; so much so that it really does detract from ones enjoyment of the courses there. Is it the conditioning or the selection of grass type that's the real problem? When I played there, Pine Barrens had common bermuda; I doubt the greenkeeper's actions could be faulted for these surfaces not rolling well. I seem to recall some sort of dwarf variety on Rolling Oaks, which was better but still not good enough.

Is it the grass variety or the maintenance or both that is at fault at WW?

[John_Cullum]

Pete

I would guess the grass at Rolling Oaks might be tifeagle. It looks alot like tifeagle, but its hard for my untrained eye to tell, especially at this time of year. Tifeagle can be kept at high speeds, 10 plus with verticutting and topdressing. Thats how its kept at my home club. It can get tough in August or Sept., but you can keep very good greens this time of year in Florida at least until the first aeration, which is upon us now. After that there will be about a 2 1/2 week recovery period and then they can be great until you punch them again.

[Tom_Doak]

John Cullum:

Your question brings to light an aspect of the green speed debate which we have not focused on here much.  I used to think about it a lot back in my High Pointe days, but not much with more recent clients.  That is:

If you build greens with a lot of contour, they should be maintained a bit slower, which keeps the maintenance budget a bit lower.

However, if you build greens flatter to account for the potential of high green speeds, then the greens seem dull unless they are kept fast on an everyday basis.  So, flatter greens tend to push the maintenance budget higher.

[John_Cullum]

Tom D

That is quite true, and quite logical. I kept thinking during my round that while many on the GCA site mention the virtues of slower greens, they probably rarely see what a failure they might be. I was left wondering what Strong's greens at Engineers must be like if they have to kept down around 6 or 7. That must be some really wild stuff.

The greens at Rolling Oaks have plenty of contour, although the contours are rarely sharp, like Augusta Nat'l. If they were rolling around 10, putts might break as much as 8 feet or so, and that's fun to me. Ramming a 25 footer with only 18 inches of break and coming up a little short got old, especially when I could readily see what I was missing.

[Tom Huckaby]

JC:

I'm one who extols the virtues of slower greens, I suppose.  I do rail against the greens being too fast at my beloved Pasatiempo anyway.

Just do understand that this displeasure exists ONLY at outliers like Pasa, with wild contours and very steep slopes.  At greens with anything other than these, heck yes too slow can very much be an issue - I absolutely understand how WW-RO left you wanting more.

In any case TD's point is a very good one as well, and I sure never thought if this in terms of maintenance cost.

It would seem there must be a happy medium, no?  Greens with a lot of contour that work best at 8-9 or so on the stimp... Low-cost, fun, never boring....

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

I like the sentiment expressed by the original post.
Pampered golfers, wherever they come from, who express displeasure over the conditions of the course, when they are only there for a few days (if that), is a real downer to have to listen to. Mostly, the bitching comes from individuals who don't care why they might be a little slow that day, and are so self absorbed they blame the green for their poor score. Adapt or perish.

[Tom Huckaby]

I like the sentiment expressed by the original post.
Pampered golfers, wherever they come from, who express displeasure over the conditions of the course, when they are only there for a few days (if that), is a real downer to have to listen to. Mostly, the bitching comes from individuals who don't care why they might be a little slow that day, and are so self absorbed they blame the green for their poor score. Adapt or perish.

That is wise to keep in mind for sure - unsatisfactory conditions one day might be fantastic another - and the former typically have a very good explanation - at great courses anyway.

Adapt or perish indeed - well said.

TH

[Troy Alderson]

John Cullum:

Your question brings to light an aspect of the green speed debate which we have not focused on here much.  I used to think about it a lot back in my High Pointe days, but not much with more recent clients.  That is:

If you build greens with a lot of contour, they should be maintained a bit slower, which keeps the maintenance budget a bit lower.

However, if you build greens flatter to account for the potential of high green speeds, then the greens seem dull unless they are kept fast on an everyday basis.  So, flatter greens tend to push the maintenance budget higher.

Tom D.,

That is why I try to manage my greens to the green with the most severe slopes.  We have a par 3 with an extreme back to front slope that if kept at 10, balls would roll off the front of the green.  So, my goal is 8-9 for all the greens.  I even tried keeping the greens this year at 3/16", but once the turf started really growing the shagginess showed badly and I cannot keep the greens dry enough for faster speeds.  Before I lowered the HOC to 0.160" (4mm), I was hearing that the golf course was in the worst shape in 25 years!?  Blah, blah, blah.  ADAPT!!!  I maintain slower greens because I am not given the proper budget for staffing.  I have to rely upon a 30+ year old block, unreliable, wire melting, worn head irrigation system.

I would like to maintain MacKenzie greens with severe contouring at 3/16" with good drainage, great irrigation control, and a walk mower.  Does anyone know if 3/16" HOC is still too high for severe contouring?

Troy

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

This may be from a different perspective, but the super at a course I used to work at did a quality of roll test.  He was looking for a quality roll because the previous super had earned a nickname as the "flying heads man"  as in sprinkler heads.  He spent a whole season experimenting with different speeds.  To be fair with slower speeds he topdressed quite a few times to best create smoothness.  The results of the experimentation was that at 10 the ball rolled well.  After 10 the gains in quality of roll were not too significant.  However, there was a markable difference between 9 and 10.  The difference between 8 and 10 was practically night and day.  For the past few years, he has been maintaining the greens at 11+ and occasionally higher during Sept. and Oct.  He has been doing this mostly to show what he is capable of and probably to earn the pay of some of the better self promoting supers in the area.  I do think he is one of the best that I have ever seen.  Don Szymkowicz at Engineers does a remarkable job and seems to fly under the radar of the better known supers.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()