[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm of the belief that the emerging demographic and escalating costs will have a dramatic and deleterious effect on golf courses.

It's also my belief that changing utilization patterns within the younger generations, related to non-golf activities, will result in lower club revenues.

If budgets are stressed, which maintainance practices will be cut back and what affect will reduced budgets have on architectural features ?

If this premise comes to pass, would a less than well manicured golf course become the norm ?

Would courses become firmer & faster over time due to a cut back in irrigation (water) ?

Would features such as bunkers be downsized, reduced or combined ?

Would the number of maintained tees be reduced ?

If you were a green chairman and were given the order to reduce your budget by 10-25 %, where would you cut back ?

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick Mucci.....I just spent 2 days at our GCSA chapters spring meeting...great seminars led by Bruce Clarke from Rutgers, Erik Ervin from VPI....and a host of regional USGA guys....Matt Nelson, Pat Gross, Mark Passey, Bob Vavrek and Larry Gulluly....

Many of the best practices we encourage on this board, many of the qualities we want to see when we play a golf course, cost lots of money...

However....Bruce Clarke in his simplicity nails it....increase Nitrogen, raise height of cut on greens, water just right and roll your greens a couple of times  a week.

[Rick Shefchik]

Craig --

For those of us who don't have a detailed knowledge of course maintenance, what specifically would be the effect of those measures? For instance, what would happen if course used more nitrogen? Are you saying that rolling the greens several times a week would lessen the need for more frequent mowing? What is the right amount to water? I'd be really interested to understand these issues better. Thanks.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, there is really no way to answer your questions.  Particularly, where to cut 10-25%.  Many questions you raise already imply answers.  But, for each circumstance and consequence are different from course to course, or club to club.  That is because every club has a different base line of values and differing standards that they expect or want to see on their course, at their club.  

I know of clubs in this area where I think it might really be tough to cut 10% because they are already run efficiently, and have a more lean and economical operating standard as it is.  Yet, I can think of a couple where I really believe they have enough fat, and enough eye candy and aesthetic touches throughout their course, where if times got tough, they could cut and still have a fine course.  

Things like ornamentals and flower gardens throughout the course, including green house operations on-site.  There are gardens  next to tees and cart paths, and really overly maintained turf that would need to be weaned slowly from all the pampering.  But, the obvious key is whether the members could stand to see a little austerity.  I don't see all those old long time members that play infrequently, and it is more about the social life around the club, agreeing to a less than beautiful course and grounds, in their perception of what is good.  

I guess each club sets its own standards over time through trial and error.  Some get it right (as we might agree).  Some demand standards that are expensive, and yet their committees aren't all that sympathetic to any super that don't give it to them.  Cutting 10-25% will invariably be taken out of the super's hide, one way or the other.  But, who will lower their expectations to a functional, yet austere set of standards?  

[Brad Klein]

Absolutely agree with Pat Mucci on this. Market segmentation will require niche maintenance, based upon specific standards for specifically segmented tiers of facilities and target markets, with clubs/courses willing to pay according to maintenance quality. There's no need for all facilities to have the save levels of conditioning. It's a business decision, and so long as the major focus is keeping tees, fairways and greens in decent shape, then some courses can attend to bunkers, roughs and approaches with more flexibility and hand work according to markets, budgets and labor availability.

I have a column about this in this coming issue of Golfweek, and the unsigned editorial at the back addresses a similar commitment.

The way to make it work is for the superintendent, golf pro and g.m. to get on the same boat and to have it all documented in a financial master plan that includes maintenance standards.

[TEPaul]

My suggestion is that maintenance depts need to do far more detailed and itemized cost accounting where maintenance dollars go. If green committees and clubs can see in more detail where the dollars go they are better prepared to know where to cut costs.

Even if growing mediums and weather patterns are different in GB etc, the USA could probably help itself by looking more closely at what GB maintenance practices and maintenance costs are and why.

The fact is the US agronomic industry is now a mega-monster that is designed to sustain itself and its billion dollar industry at the expense of American golf. What that industry has created over time is a general agronomic status quo that can fairly be termed "The Great American Agronomic Emergency Ward".  

Decades of hybridization and constant remediation has institutionalized a locked-in agronomic condition and expectation and cost structure, and emergency wards are really expensive.

American agronomy ought to be weaned off the great American agronomic emergency ward and let go back outside to fend for itself better with Nature as it has done previously for perhaps millions of years.  

We would probably find it hard to believe the various natural defense mechanisms agronomy possesses that have, over time, been shut down by the "Great American Agronomic Emergency Ward"----eg the billion dollar American Agronomy industry and all its supporting and ancilliary products and mechanisms based on the idea of constant artificial remediation maintenance of one kind and another.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,  I agree and think it is already happening.  This is a very important issue and I am pleased you brought it up.

Tom Paul,

Those are some of the most powerful statements ever expressed on GCA.com and I am proud you made them and hope this really helps focus attention on this important issues.  The top-tier clubs will always do things in a different way, but the vast majority of clubs need to address the way the ag chemical business influences maintenance practices and costs.  I don't think we can replicate the seaside model of UK grasses and maintenance, but there are alternatives to consider.  Scott Anderson at Huntingdon Valley establishes one very important model.  There are others.  These have been replicated successfully elsewhere.  

Tom, I think we should get a group of superintendents from around the country from across all segments to sit down and listen to the approaches of Scott Anderson and others that see things a little differently but whose programs result in reasonable budgets and outstanding playability.  Maybe such a conference, if merited, could be discussed in leading publications and websites demonstrating some alternative ideas that may diverge from standard practices (and also of advertisers, i.e. the ag prducts and chem businesses).  

I hope this discussion continues.  Good show!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat,
Of course it could only be judged on a case by case basis, but IMO, if a course had to cut back the first place would be labor. Most courses put way to much emphasis on details that have nothing to do with playing the game. All the edging and "beautification" could be handled with much less labor if standards were lowered just a bit.
After that, I think you'd see a reduction in capitol spending on equipment. New equipment has greatly increased in price in the last few years while the market is flooded with low hour used equipment that is half the cost, but I doubt your seeing many private clubs considering anything but new. (The manufactures sell clubs on warranties and fixed costs on repairs, but it doesn't even come close to penciling out when compared to quality used equipment)
Lastly, I think you’d see a decline in “designer” fertility programs and a return to basics which could cut a nutrient program costs by half.


I once read a quote by a Superintendent out in California named Bob Taeger, "I could reduce my budget by 20% if I didn't have to keep 5% of my golfers happy."
I think those are good words and clubs should consider them when addressing budget concerns.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Wayne,
I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember reading Scott's interview and thinking that although what he does sure looks great, it didn't seem like his budget was all that low.
Is it? Compared to other 27 hole courses, or compared to the Merions of the world?
I don't know the answer and am curious to what folks here consider low, medium and high when it comes to budgets.
Thanks.

[TEPaul]

Actually, Pat's question isn't what the coming impact of stressed green budgets are on golf, it's the coming impact of stressed green budgets (maintenance practices) on architecture.

Generally, stressed green budgets may even benefit architecture in the long run. It may help remove the expectations and the fact of unnecessary "artistic aesthetics" from the entire concept of golf course architecture and simply force it back towards less costly naturalism in both look and practice.

[Steve Okula]

Pat,
Of course it could only be judged on a case by case basis, but IMO, if a course had to cut back the first place would be labor. Most courses put way to much emphasis on details that have nothing to do with playing the game. All the edging and "beautification" could be handled with much less labor if standards were lowered just a bit.
After that, I think you'd see a reduction in capitol spending on equipment. New equipment has greatly increased in price in the last few years while the market is flooded with low hour used equipment that is half the cost, but I doubt your seeing many private clubs considering anything but new. (The manufactures sell clubs on warranties and fixed costs on repairs, but it doesn't even come close to penciling out when compared to quality used equipment)
Lastly, I think you’d see a decline in “designer” fertility programs and a return to basics which could cut a nutrient program costs by half.

Don's right. Labor consumes 2/3 of the average maintenance budget. A huge chunk of that goes to people weeding flower beds, trimming around trees and bunkers, daily raking of sand, filling divots with sand, looking after ball washers, benches, water coolers, signs, ropes and stakes, and so on. I could cut my labor budget by a third by reducing manucuring if it wouldn't be career suicide. I don't see how anyone saves money by rolling greens insted of mowing them.

One area in the maintenance that should be respected at all costs and the last to suffer would undoubtedly be the superintendents salary.

[TEPaul]

Don:

On an apples to apples basis Anderson's budgets may be something around half of Merion's. And for a full and over-all comparison one probably needs to compare not just the annual operationing budgets of the two clubs but also the on-going capitol budgets.

For instance, Anderson has a really old and antiquated irrigation system and the fact is if the club attempted to get a new modern state-of-the-art irrigation system, Anderson would probably quit. He apparently loves that old antiquated irrigation system and has figured out a way to make it work perfectly for his unique and natural maintenance program.

He once drew me a picture on a piece of paper of how he makes it work for him and his maintenance program. I must say I couldn't understand it. But it's not important that I understand it--it's only important that he understands it.  

[Donnie Beck]

Do fairways have to be double cut every day of the week using triplexes? Could you still play your ball in the fairway if they were only cut 2 times a week? What about tee's do they really need to be cut everyday? I know without a doubt you could reduce by the numbers Pat is talking about by adjusting mowing patterns.

[Don_Mahaffey]

To the original question, a reduction in money available may be good for the architecture as it could take the focus away from non-golf activities and return the focus to maintaining good golfing turf for playing the game.

Imagine what your course would be like if all you could afford to do is maintain areas that are essential to the playing of the game in the most cost effective way possible. Lots of things might change…for the better I believe.

[TEPaul]

Now I'm going to ask you supers out there a very important question and that is to itemize what percentage of your over-all annual operating AND your capitol budget goes to the total maintenance of bunkers (as compared to if none of them were there)?

One top tier club around here not long after a recent bunker project told me that up to 40% of their annual operating budget was allocated to bunkering.

To say the least, that really floored me! I like bunkers but if that's even near true my suggestion would be for new construction projects to look very carefully at this architectural item to determine how necessary it really is, and to look for interesting and far less costly architectural alternatives.

Creative and futuristic architects in the past, namely George Thomas, made this point and pretty forcefully, but like a lot of things back then nobody seemed willing to listen.

[Brad Klein]

Tom,

I'm seeing more and more top-tier clubs spend the same $ per square foot on bunkers as on greens. However they spend their money, though, the issue for me isn't what top-tier clubs do; it's what mid-tier and discount courses do and how the game can be segmented and differentiated for different levels of players and budgets.

[Mike_Young]

I see a lot of good ideas above.  Butwe have so many people playing golf that could not even tell you why they play......and some of these guys are on green coomittees and golf committees.  
As TE says above we have been "led down the path" by the industry to an extent.  Not much is ever said about how much fairway height has increased distance or how many pin positions are eliminated with faster speeds.  Not to pick on industry but for ex:  mowing equipment today requires more than three times the parts budget it required when reels were ground driven(fairway and rough units not greens)  and the ground driven reel machines could last 20 years vs 5 for a hydraulic unit.  The capital purchase of such equipment is much lower also and the parts budgets go down the first year.
Bunker aesthetics have become as important as greens or tees in the maintenance scheme.  Why?  If a bunker isn't indiginous to a specific area let nature determine it's look.....not a bunker fabric or an edging method.  You dont change strategy by changing a bunker to a flatter sand from a flashed sand.....and the savings are significant....
AND  If a grass isn't meant for your region.....don't plant it.......
I think the biggest differences between golf here and golf in GB are two things.....1.  The people actually enjoy golf....not the lockerroom or the cigar or the personal winelocker....2.  They play with what they have.....in other words ...bunker shapes etc are determined by the climate and weather conditions of the area....grass heights "blend" not sharp and distinct and COLOR is never an issue....
JMO

[Mark_Fine]

I just participated in Bob Randquist's seminar on Bunker/Hazard Maintenance.  Some of us already know this but upwards of 25% or more of most clubs maintenance budgets are spent maintaining hazards (which as Brad stated above, is as much or more than is spent on the greens).  It is a joke and one of the most obvious places where LOTS of money can be saved.  

We need to help reset expectations about what hazards are, why they are there, and how they should be maintained.  I think Bob did a great job opening many people's eyes about this and hopefully they will take this information back to their clubs and start educating their decision makers and golfers.  

[John Gosselin]

Any cost reductions in golf maintenance usually will come out of Salaries and Wages. There are plenty of models out there already where clubs are spending significantly less than the higher budget clubs. In most, if not all cases, the biggest discrepancy is not in chemicals and fertilizer, it is in the Superintendent's salary and the number of employees he/she has to work with. This usually translates into less frequency of all your general maintenance tasks, which is perceived by most golfers as "poor conditions".

In the Mid-Atlantic region where the disease and insect pressure is very high due to our climate chemical budgets, at typical private club,  are generally around 10% or less of the total budget. Fertilizers are around 5% or less. Salaries, wages, and employee related run as high as 70% of the total budget.

With all the illegal labor in the US keeping the wages for unskilled and moderately skilled employees down significantly, the US golfer is already playing golf at a discount.      

If we are really going to stop the trend of escalating maintenance budgets we have to change the customers expectations or perceptions. The customer has demanded a certain type of golf course in the US and until the customer wants change the industry professional will continue to deliver to be successful.




 

[Peter Pallotta]

I think this is the most important kind of discussion we can have on this board.

I don't think there'll ever be a uniformity in golf's playing fields; that's part of the charm. It's not hockey rinks or basketball courts we're talking about. But:

While this might be naive and simplistic, I do believe it's true: Build it (and/or maintain it) simply and efficiently, and they will come; build/maintain it simply and efficiently, and then PROMOTE it properly and widely, and they will come in droves; continue this practice proudly and consistently, and the course will succesfully fulfill its purpose for years to come.

I understand that the "promotion" of the latest $600 driver is an easier fit in the marketplace (lots of vested interests there), but I think it's a quantitative and not qualitative difference.

This is also partly why I find myself interested in the history of golf course architecture: 1) because a growing knowledge of what the game and the courses were like in the past (e.g. agronomy issues) might broaden the scope of what's considered acceptable in the future, and 2) like the cliche says, how do you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been?

Peter

[TEPaul]

"....the issue for me isn't what top-tier clubs do; it's what mid-tier and discount courses do and how the game can be segmented and differentiated for different levels of players and budgets."

Brad:

Can you elaborate on what you mean by segmenting and differentiating? What is your ideal in that context? And what do you propose to counteract the old truism---"the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence"?

[Peter Zarlengo]

Trying to tie two threads together, I feel that the "greening " of golf courses will depend largely on the drainage of the course. By trying to treat rain where it falls, and capturing the excess for irrigation, water issues could be less of a problem. From my one year working on golf courses, I noticed that rainwater had a much more positive impact on the golf course than the thousands of gallons that we pounded on the golf course each day.

Noticing how public courses in Denver responded to drought a few years ago, it seemed as if they just topped watering rough, and decreased maintenence standards. Upscale courses either bought more water rights, or started using effluent water to irrigate, leading to other problems. "Green" budgets will demand more creative ways to drain and irrigate the turf, which we wight begin to see in more of the same light.

[JESII]

One issue I see that is related, but maybe just a cousin, to this conversation is the consolidation of golf courses. I live in the northern suburbs of Philadelphia and we are saturated with private country clubs. Many of them are really struggling to stay afloat. If, over the next 10 years 15% (an arbitrary number, no data to support) of the private clubs closed, the remaining 85% would improve their financial security tremendously, and may not have these budget issues.

I don't have my head in the sand when it come to the cost that maintenance adds to the game, and I think many of these ideas above are valid. I asked a few weeks ago, on a different subject, if people would accept reduced fairway maintenance standards to offset more fairway acreage from a budget perspective and was told probably not. I don't disagree, and I do understand that "needing" and "wanting" are wholly different forms of motivation, but this type of creativity seems imminent.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewanderson.html

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/interviewanderson2.html

Here are the links to Scott Anderson's interviews with GCA, should shed some light on his approach.

[JNagle]

Is another part of the problem the PGA Tour and not just the Agronomic Industry?  Mike Young stated above that many cannot say why they play golf.  I believe that same thought process (ignorance ot stupidity) extends into the expected conditions one desires or demands based on what they see on T.V.  Our society is driven by a covetousness desire that extends from homes to vehicles..... and ultimately into the Club dynamics.  We (private club) Club A cannot be anything less than Club B down the road.  Even when Club B has a national membership and a budget that is much greater than Club A.  Many Clubs do not realize the great little course that they already have (Brad's discussion on finding your own niche).  How many times have people on this board heard or even said "We want to take this Club to the next level"?  What does that really mean?  And does that club ultimately alienate a more accessible clientele (member base) by doing so?  

[wsmorrison]

In researching the prospect for a new golf course to replace the existing 9-hole course on their family estate, John D. Rockefeller, 3rd and Nelson Rockefeller investigated the annual expenses for maintenance budgets at various golf clubs to determine the long-term costs of maintaining a golf course at the estate.  If the maintenance costs were deemed too high, they would not have approved going ahead with construction of the new course.  

They certainly made this point clear to William Flynn.  Flynn thus felt compelled to discuss his methods of construction and how they differed from usual practices, saving money in the long run,

  “…our method of building Golf Courses varies somewhat from the general practice in that we use considerably greater quantities of material in developing construction.  This is brought about by blending slopes naturally into surrounding surfaces, so as to present a pleasing effect to the eye, and not marring the landscape.  Naturally this sort of construction is more expensive than that obtained from stereotype ideas, but in the long run great savings may be effected in the maintenance expense by the elimination of costly hand work.”

Do the superintendents and architects on this site believe this to be true?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()