The failure of the Maintainance Meld

[JESII]

How is that tied to maintenance?

[John_Cullum]

You must delight in being wrong and making assumptions that are far removed from the facts, much like your allegation about the fans at Augusta.

I've played the golf course more than 50 times.
[/b][/color]

....

That's your amended position.
Originally you implied that ANGC ran fans on the golf course when the members were playing.  Your quote follows

Is it true that these courses use green fans to cool their greens during member play.  I'm talking about above ground and not Sub-Air.  Are they portable or permanent?[/b][/color]

Pat

Where does JakaB imply that Augusta Nat in fact has fans? I see an honest question searching for an honest answer. (A concept with which you aren't familiar.)

[JESII]

John,


I believe that happened in a prior thread started by JK...

[John Kavanaugh]

How is that tied to maintenance?

Here is our schedule of events...It is 100% tied to maintenance and possible maintenance meld.  If we are rolling the ball in recently aeriated fairways during the club championship how can that be a good thing.  Of course I won't be playing because I promised to take my son on a Civil War tour over Memorial Day weekend...

MAY
May 24th - Thursday - Men's Stag Guest Day
May 25th - Friday - Couple's Sunset
May 26th/27th - Sat/Sun - Club Championship
May 28th - Monday - Memorial Day (course open)
May 29th - Tuesday - Club Closed (day after holiday)

JUNE
June 6 - 9th - Wed - Sat - Men's Member Guest Event
club closed to others
June 15th - Friday - Couple's Sunset
June 24th - 26th - Sun - Tues - Interclub Invitational
June 28th - Thursday - Ladies Guest day
June 30th - Saturday - MemberMember

JULY
July 1st - Sunday - Member Member
July 13th - Friday - Couple's Sunset
July 28th - Saturday - Parent Child Tournament

[John Kavanaugh]

John,


I believe that happened in a prior thread started by JK...

I only asked if Augusta had fans because my super says on the web site that he has seen them with his own eyes.  Who should I believe and why would he lie?  Pat has to be mistaken and the fans must exist.  His exact quote again from our web site:

Fans:  We will soon be placing a fan near #1 green.  I don't believe anyone, myself included, likes the visual look of fans near greens.  However, in our difficult growing environment they are a necessary evil.  Comforting is the fact that many of the best clubs in the country have them.  In recent trips to Muirfield Village Golf Club and Augusta National Golf Club, I was surprised to see that they had many more than we do.

[John_Cullum]

John,


I believe that happened in a prior thread started by JK...

Yeah, but Pat somehow tried to incorporate it into this thread through some exercise of intellectual dishonesty

[JESII]

How many courses have a CLEAR conflict between the architecture and the maintainance of the golf course ?

Most!


I have asked the architects on here a few times about their interest in the long-term maintenance presentation of their golf courses and the responses were mostly couched in terms of... "I don't have the time to spend X days a year consulting on each of my courses" or "I don't have the requisite agronomic expertise" or similar such comments.

If the architect is not interested in the job then it can only be left to the club, and how can they be trusted?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Where does JakaB imply that Augusta Nat in fact has fans ?


With this statement which appeared in his original post.[/color]

Are they portable or permanent ?[/color]


The implication is clear, he's factually stating that they exist and merely wants clarification as to whether they're portable or permanent.

The fan issue speaks to JakaB's pronouncement on an issue in spite of a lack of first hand factual data.  It's the same with respect to this thread, he's never played the golf course, never set foot on the golf course and has never seen pictures of the features in question, yet he blindly postures and makes pronoucements about the features from total ignorance, diverting what could have been a decent thread.[/color]

I see an honest question searching for an honest answer. (A concept with which you aren't familiar.)

As to honesty, I'd almost forgotten, wasn't it you that made pronouncements about Seminole based on looking at the property from an apartment complex to the north and sneaking on to a remote corner late in the day for a few minutes.

If so, I can see why you'd defend JakaB's methods.

If not, could you identify any dishonest questions I asked that were searching for other than an honest answer ?
[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,


I believe that happened in a prior thread started by JK...

Yeah, but Pat somehow tried to incorporate it into this thread through some exercise of intellectual dishonesty

What difference does it make, when the pattern is repeated ?
And, it is intellectually dishonest to put forth a statement as fact when you don't know it's factual.  

In addition, it's now being revealed that JakaB has an agenda which transcends the "fan" issue.

JakaB doesn't have a clue with respect to the features at the course under discussion and how the mowing patterns have undermined if not destroyed the "maintainance meld" yet he makes absurd statements, about the features and the issue.

And, you want me to allow him to make these inaccurate, false statements without challenge.  

Ask yourself who's being dishonest now ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'd take issue with the protective buffer of rough.

While it does tend to be systemic, some clubs do employ the maintainance meld in this area.

Seminole is one of them.

There aren't any substantive buffers to prevent balls from feeding into bunkers, in fact, the mowing practices encourage it.

JES II,

I think you have to understand that the architect has to leave the property at some point in time and can't micro manage maintainance practices.

Usually, he leaves the property with everyone involved having a pretty clear concept of what should and shouldn't be done.

But, time and new faces in positions of authority erode the original mandate.

As an example, I saw a club plant some trees in the rough.
Over 10-20 years those trees grew such that the drip line was into the fairway.  The fellows on the fairway gang mower, not wanting to get hit by the intrusive limbs, drove around them, thus the rough lines became invasive.
As more time passed and the tree grew, so did the invasive rough line until the strategy and play of the hole was altered.

Who's to blame.
Not the crew member riding the mower.
But, the original planter of the tree was obviously lacking vision and couldn't project the impact of a mature tree on the golf course and the strategy associated with playing it.

In addition, subsequent individuals in positions of authority are also to blame for being asleep at the switch, for failing to notice how this single tree was allowing rough lines to become invasive and to alter play.

You can't expect an architect to micro manage or police deviations from his design that occur subsequent to his work.

The responsibility for vigilance rests with the membership.

Superintendents, by education are agronomists, not architects

But, back to the golf course at hand.

When you have a really neat hybrid Redan where the green sits below the tee and the hole has a terrific turbo boost, you don't allow the turbo boost to become non-functional by allowing deep rough to grow where fairway belongs.

The allowing of deep rough to grow in the approach ramp is clear evidence that the membership doesn't understand the architecture and that they've never heard of the "maintainance meld"

If TEPaul could spend a few hours going over hole by hole, I have no doubt that the members would benefit by being able to play a far more enjoyable and functional golf course, one where the architecture is in harmony with the maintainance practices.

[JESII]

Pat,


To be clear, I agree 100% that the onus is on the membership to do what is right for their golf course...therein lies the hook...do you think any of the countless thousands of "improvements" to golf courses were ever intended as something other than "what's best for the golf course"?

When you identify the superintendent as being educated in agronomics, I agree, that is their particular expertise. Once the architect has left the premises, what's left to ensure some loyalty to the original plan?

Tell me, why does the architect have to leave the property at some point?

Obviously, I am not talking about a full time presence, but a detailed written guideline as well as contractually arranged occassional visits could only strengthen the preservation of the architects intent.

This arrangement would have likely eliminated the cut-line issue you confronted...Do you think AWT would agree with your assesment of the hole in question?

[Patrick_Mucci]

To be clear, I agree 100% that the onus is on the membership to do what is right for their golf course...therein lies the hook...

do you think any of the countless thousands of "improvements" to golf courses were ever intended as something other than "what's best for the golf course"?

I think most of the "improvements" were agenda driven.
I don't think that those voting on the issue could step back and evaluate how the change affected everyone, and I think they contexted the improvement based on their perception of how it impacted their game.[/color]

When you identify the superintendent as being educated in agronomics, I agree, that is their particular expertise. Once the architect has left the premises, what's left to ensure some loyalty to the original plan?

That's the big question.
It's been my limited experience that time and the revolving door of club governance erode the original intent.

I believe that the original, or consulting architect should be a member of the green committee and should review any proposed overt changes to the golf course.

But, how many architects want to get involved in that nonsense ?  They don't have the time or the patience and in many cases the club doesn't want to pay them for a field visit.

Unless a club has a powerful group of stewards who understand golf - architecture, you're going to see alterations/disfigurations that aren't in the best interest of the golf course or the members.

It's a difficult situation, especially in democratically run clubs.

I know a club that had the original architect return many years later to make some revisions to the golf course.
You wouldn't believe the arguments the architect encountered when he told the club why he built a certain feature.  Members who had only joined the club recently, told the architect why the original features were the way they were, despite being in conflict to the architect's stated intent.

So, here you have the horses mouth detailing design intent and a horses ass telling him he was wrong.   And, you wonder why architects don't want to get involved in the micro management of maintainance practices. [/color]

Tell me, why does the architect have to leave the property at some point?

Obviously, I am not talking about a full time presence, but a detailed written guideline as well as contractually arranged occassional visits could only strengthen the preservation of the architects intent.

I was involved with creating a Master Plan that took 15 months to produce.  It was adopted unanimously by the board.  One provision stated that NO changes could be made to the golf course without prior board approval and consultation with the architect.

Yet, in ten years, everyone forgot about it and changes were made on a whim.

The answer is: "The best laid schemes o' mice and men gang aft a-gley.[/color]

This arrangement would have likely eliminated the cut-line issue you confronted...Do you think AWT would agree with your assesment of the hole in question?[size=8x]
1000 %[/color][/size]

[JESII]

Pat,

I do not believe in screaming about a problem without at least recommending a solution. Your positions every time this subject comes up are focused on past and present mistakes when they could be more beneficial if you put your mind to a potential solution.

Why is it unrealistic to think a compensation offer to an architect should include downstream consulting fees?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I do not believe in screaming about a problem without at least recommending a solution.

How do you know that I haven't recommended a solution ?
[/color]

Your positions every time this subject comes up are focused on past and present mistakes when they could be more beneficial if you put your mind to a potential solution.

I know what the solution is.
But, that alone won't rectify the problem.[/color]

Why is it unrealistic to think a compensation offer to an architect should include downstream consulting fees ?

Let's just say that experience is a great teacher.

But, let me present the issue in a light that should add clarity.

Tom Doak's the consultant.
The golf course is outside of Philadelphia.
Some members want him to review a proposal to allow rough to grow behind a critical, diagonal fairway bunker.
Tom Doak is in Traverse City, MI.
His on site visit will take 15-30 minutes at most.
Airfare is $ 578 overnight lodging is $ 150, car rental is
$ 150, throw in a few meals and ADD his fee for his time, since he'll be away from the office or other full clients for a day or two and you might have a bill in the thousands of dollars.  

Is the club going to go for that ?

Is Tom Doak going to take a day or two out of his schedule to do that ?

Clarity ? [/color]

[JESII]

Pat,


In my scenario, Tom would make just a bit less up front and work out the remainder of the contract over whatever time frame was agreeable...ideally a long term arrangement.


I have full confidence that in your real life you have made recommendations...and very good ones. My point is that you haven't done so on here, at least not as a regular practice when these threads come up. Your posts would be more valuable if you did relate more of your real world experiences up front so we could all benefit.

We all have a passion for golf courses and it seems you have as much experiance as anyone on here as to the decisions made at the private club level. Share your knowledge as opposed to using as a sword...

[Patrick_Mucci]

In my scenario, Tom would make just a bit less up front and work out the remainder of the contract over whatever time frame was agreeable...ideally a long term arrangement.

Can you cite me some examples of where that's occured ?[/color]

I have full confidence that in your real life you have made recommendations...and very good ones.

Agreed [/color]

My point is that you haven't done so on here, at least not as a regular practice when these threads come up.

This isn't the forum for that discourse.
And, when I do, someone who's never dealt in that world, who has no experience in this area, tells me that I'm incorrect.

You may recall the dialogue TEPaul and I had with Tom MacWood and the references made to the "Ivory Tower"
This board tends to take a simplistic view of how golf courses get altered and how they can get restored.
When I stated that "politics" determines architectural outcomes I was told that I didn't know what I was talking about by someone who never sat on a green committee or a board.  

And, I don't have the patience to hand hold through the information/experience labyrinth[/color]

Your posts would be more valuable if you did relate more of your real world experiences up front so we could all benefit.

You can't say that I haven't tried to do that.
Let's take a recent example.

Sean Arble is telling me that green budgets of $ 1,000,000 aren't the norm.   I'm tellling him they are in the Metro NY area and in South Florida.

I'm in receipt of a half a dozen green budgets every year, AND, in addition, comparitive surveys of green budgets that incorporate dozens of clubs, yet, he and AHughes tell me I'm wrong.  When I ask them to identify the clubs in those areas with green budgets below 1,000,000, they say there's no point in continuing the discussion, because they don't have a clue.

Another rocket scientist tried to tell me what was in the pictures of Boca Rio that Tommy Naccarato posted.
Kelly Blake Moran had to finally tell him to shut up and just listen.

So, how much MORE time do you want me to spend elaborating on some of these issues ?  I have many other interests in my life that are more important.[/color]

We all have a passion for golf courses and it seems you have as much experiance as anyone on here as to the decisions made at the private club level. Share your knowledge as opposed to using as a sword...

When JakaB, who has never seen the AWT course being discussed in "the failure of the MM" thread, tries to tell me what is and what isn't, I am not going to take an extraoridinary amount of time to try to explain everything to him.  Rather than listen and learn, he tried to interject, despite the fact that he's never seen the golf course in person or in pictures.  There's an element of frustration and it manifests itself with the sword, because it's just quicker.

Anytime you have asked me a question, I've tried to provide a thorough, accurate answer, but, when someone wants to be a contrarian, absent any and all facts, I have no patience for that.  I hope you understand.[/color]

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

I asked you a simple question that relates to maintenance meld and all you do is come back with personal attacks instead of either answering or just saying you don't know.  The question again is:  Does Augusta National have above ground fans?  My super says he has seen them with his own eyes..and has gone so far to say so in a written report to the membership.  I'm going to give the super the benefit of the doubt and say that they must exist and you just don't know for sure if they do or not.  What are the facts?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I asked you a simple question that relates to maintenance meld and all you do is come back with personal attacks instead of either answering or just saying you don't know.


That's not true and you know it.

Here's what you said and it has NOTHING to do with the Maintainance Meld:[/color]

Pat,

I see this as the problem that is always associated with a club allowing a critic to drive in, play one round, and leave.

Sorry a blind feature got your smarter then the membership goat.  

Perhaps you were pitched the architectural change up that some hit and runners like to call anti-strategy.  

Do you really believe that it is good for the game to have every feature maintained by the book?

Would you like to recant your statement in the face of your written words ?[/color]

The question again is:  Does Augusta National have above ground fans?  

In the times that I've been to ANGC I've never seen a fan, permanent or portable, and, I've never seen an outlet or post for a fan near the greens.  A long time member indicated that he's never seen any fans.   As I stated, ANGC is only open from October to May.  What they do from May to October is anybody's guess.[/color]

My super says he has seen them with his own eyes..and has gone so far to say so in a written report to the membership.  

At what time of year and in what locations did he see them ?
Were they portable fans.
There are NO permanent fans.
Don't you think you would have seen permanent fans by the greens during The Masters ?[/color]

I'm going to give the super the benefit of the doubt and say that they must exist and you just don't know for sure if they do or not.  

What are the facts ?

There are NO permanent fans.

What's done between May and October is a mystery since the club is closed for play.

You should ask your super for the facts since he's the one stating that ANGC uses fans during member play.[/color]

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

I stand behind every word of the following because I do believe that anti-strategy is a good thing in that it fools the thinker.  I apologize if my choice of words were offensive.  The words:

Pat,

I see this as the problem that is always associated with a club allowing a critic to drive in, play one round, and leave.

Sorry a blind feature got your smarter then the membership goat.  

Perhaps you were pitched the architectural change up that some hit and runners like to call anti-strategy.  

Do you really believe that it is good for the game to have every feature maintained by the book?

Thanks for the information about the fans at Augusta...I would ask the super but he will just tell me they are there just like he told me there are fans at Oakmont.  Do you also expect me to ask him why he is running his new fans when the temps are in the 60's...I have gone this route with him before and he always has answers.  I just came here for the truth as I do not currently have an invite to go down to Augusta and look for myself.  I am not practicing theory here...I am on the battle lines with an individual who is comprimising the design and maintenance of a fine club.  I came here and risk my very membership doing so thinking I might get answers and not insults.  This is my club where I have a huge emotional and finacial interest, not just some club where I am passing through.  Like I said, thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thanks for the information about the fans at Augusta...I would ask the super but he will just tell me they are there just like he told me there are fans at Oakmont.

Have you ever seen permanent green fans at ANGC ?
They televise that course pretty thoroughly.
That's not to say that portable fans couldn't be employed, but neither I nor the member I spoke to recalled seeing any during play.[/color]

Do you also expect me to ask him why he is running his new fans when the temps are in the 60's...I have gone this route with him before and he always has answers.

Every fan I've ever seen was employed during hot weather.
Using them with temps in the 60's seems odd, but, there may be a valid reason for their use, I'm just not familiar with the particulars.[/color]  

I just came here for the truth as I do not currently have an invite to go down to Augusta and look for myself.  

I can only go by my experiences and the experiences of other individuals in a position to know.[/color]

I am not practicing theory here...I am on the battle lines with an individual who is comprimising the design and maintenance of a fine club.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but, how is the design being compromised ?

And, if there's a valid reason for the fans, how is the maintainance being compromised ?

I'm not clear on the issues.[/color]

I came here and risk my very membership doing so thinking I might get answers and not insults.  This is my club where I have a huge emotional and finacial interest, not just some club where I am passing through.  Like I said, thanks.


I clearly understand the risk you're taking.

I know that you're sincere in your concerns.

I guess I'd try to understand why there's a perceived need for fans when temps are in the 60's.
Will they be temporary or permanent ?
There are a good number of questions that have to be asked and answered before you can get a good grasp on the entire situation.  Good luck.[/color]

[Steve Burrows]

Patrick Mucci wrote:

"Tom Doak's the consultant.
The golf course is outside of Philadelphia.
Some members want him to review a proposal to allow rough to grow behind a critical, diagonal fairway bunker.
Tom Doak is in Traverse City, MI.
His on site visit will take 15-30 minutes at most.
Airfare is $ 578 overnight lodging is $ 150, car rental is
$ 150, throw in a few meals and ADD his fee for his time, since he'll be away from the office or other full clients for a day or two and you might have a bill in the thousands of dollars.  

Is the club going to go for that ?

Is Tom Doak going to take a day or two out of his schedule to do that ?"

With respect, Patrick, I would imagine the answer to both your questions is a resounding "YES!!!"  If the club truly believes the this issue is important, then they will pay the money, and, I would further imagine, if the club pays Mr. Doak the money, he would be more than willing to make it a priority to spend those 15 minutes at the course, lending his professional opinion to the subject.

In "The Social Contract," Rousseau said something to the effect of how a government cannot, will not, function outside of the will of the people.  Even a dictator is in his position because the people allow him to be, not simply because he alone wishes to be.  

If this, or any other issue is important to the overall health, well-being, or integrity of the golf course, then the will of the people (membership) will correct it.  But, until then, the will of membership dictates that things remain as they are, even though yourself and others may scorn this decision.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

I used the phrase, "will of the membership" many years ago.

The will of the membership can be as focused as possilbe, but, if the architect decides he's not spending two days to travel to see some alterered rough lines on a golf course, then, it's not going to happen.

So, it's more than just the club ponying up the money.

In addition, you make it sound like clubs are ready to throw money at the simplest of problems to resolve them.
I've found it just the opposite.
No matter how wealthy a membership club is, money is ALWAYS an issue.

The line of least resistance is as follows:

"We don't need an architect and the expense of an architect, we're just going to move the rough line on a few holes."
We can do it in house, see how it looks and go from there.

In the overwhelming number of cases that I've been aware of, that's how it's done.

And, in 99 % of the cases, the majority of the membership doesn't have a clue with respect to the future ramifications of the modification.

 

[Chris Cupit]

All right--I might get pilloried for this one but here it goes.

Last year I played Muirfield 5 times.  I played a decent amount overseas and if anyone has read any of my posts, they probably know I am not a Murifield fan--some interesting stuff but kinda bland for my taste.

Anyway, I'd like to mention the par 5 ninth hole.

I don't think it is a maintainence exactly because I am not sure they have ever changed how the fairway has been mowed but I wonder if it wouldn't be a more intersting hole if the area of rough left of the fairway bunkers were manitained as fairway tight up against the old stone OB wall?

The drive (I guess as it has always been) forces you right of the bunkers.  The second shot offers a nice strategic option as the green opens up if you can flirt with the OB left and keep the second shot on the plateau area near the wall.  

The "problem" was that the green was not all that severe or interesting.  Even shots hit right of the green side bunkers left a fairly simple chip.  I remember wondering why anyone would even consider hitting tight to the OB wall since the chip was pretty much the same from anywhere.

(FWIW I think the prevailing wind is slightly against and from the left--for most right handers the most chalenging wind).

Anyway, would the hole be more interesting with more of a choice off the tee?  Could it play a little like the principal's nose bunkers on the 16th at TOC?  I think you could end up with 18-25 yards of width if this left side drive option were available.

Would you tempt a bigger hitter to try and fly the edges of the bunkers and possibly bring the OB into play?  Would a player try to hit it between the wall and bunkers??  Last summer even a tee shot that did carry the right edge of the last fairway bunker would hang up in the tall stuff!

The tee shot was not an easy one but there was only one choice--fit it between bunkers left and hay right--any thoughts on giving another option off the tee by simply mowing down the tall stuff?  

Also, with the hay left of the buners now, you have to fly a ball OB to really hit it out of play (YES--left you can also lose a ball just like OB but....)

All right, I'm ducking

[James Bennett]

Thanks for the information about the fans at Augusta...I would ask the super but he will just tell me they are there just like he told me there are fans at Oakmont.  Do you also expect me to ask him why he is running his new fans when the temps are in the 60's...I have gone this route with him before and he always has answers.  

John

I expect your concerns on this issue may run deeper than just the role of fans.  However, on the sole issue of fans, I stumbled across this article in the USGA Green Record, and it states that reducing the surface temperature of the turf is the least important aspect of fans.  Best to read the whole article.  I have attached an excerpt below, and a link to the USGA Greens Record for the complete article after that

James B



Optimizing The Turfgrass Canopy Environment With Fans


Fans can help overcome poor growing environments.

by Patrick M. O'Brien
Reprinted from the USGA Green Section Record
1996 July/August Vol 34(4): 9-12

Although most people in the turf industry have seen electric or gas-powered fans used on the golf course, the rationale for their use often is misunderstood. As an agronomist for the USGA Green Section, I am frequently asked questions about the use of fans. To help those involved with this issue a discussion of the benefits and liabilities of the use of fans is presented.


Affect on the Health of Bentgrass Putting Greens

Years of experience have shown that golf superintendents have the most trouble growing bentgrass or Poa annua greens during the summer at a site surrounded by trees or other barriers that allow almost no air movement. A USGA-type green provides a very effective base for growing putting green turf, but it cannot compensate for the lack of air circulation. In this environment, disease and higher rootzone moisture associated with these areas cause turfgrass plants to decline. Fans help improve air flow across greens, and the survival of bentgrass has been shown by Taylor to improve at sites with the increased air movement provided by fans.1 The positive effects of fans drying out the soil and increasing evapotranspiration are the two major benefits influencing the bentgrass. Fans offer little cooling benefit to the turfgrass, which is contrary to most popular opinion.

http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/management/greens/optimizing_turfgrass.html

[Troy Alderson]

Pat,

Your story explains why I do not feel American rough should be a part of a golf course.  If the course had short cut "through the green", your shot would have been rewarded.  Though I do not like the image that ANGC gives golfers, I like the old short cut turf BT (before Tiger).

Growing the turf taller is too easy of a way for a course to toughen up, its a cop out.  Real toughening up occurs with proper architecture, ie bunker placement, land features, tree removal, and greens with undulations.

Trees and bunkers should only be place where necessary, not just for the sake of placing two on either side of the green.  An old time GCA once said a GCA gives a golf course the most credit by designing without the need for bunkers.  I think it was Eddie Hackett.  Bunkers are a natural hazard in coastal links courses.

So what other natural hazards can occur on inland courses?

Troy

[Tags:]

Tags: