News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

"Playability" superintendents
« on: May 26, 2007, 09:29:44 AM »
One of the most valuable things to me in my on-going interest in golf course architecture is the number of superintendents I've come to know and the fact that I really do stay in touch with so many of them.

I counted it up and I have well over a hundred supers' tel #s in my cell phone or computer telephone book, and if I'm going their way I never fail to call them.

Yesterday one of my favorites said something to me which really struck a chord;

He said his mentor (or one of his primary advisors when he was coming up in the business) told him that maybe only 1% of supers out there (maybe in America) come at their jobs strictly from the persepective of PLAYABILITY.

Think about that.

He said the other 99% are just trying to grow grass and protect grass.

Whether they have to for their memberships or whether they just want to anyway is beside this particular point.

This guy who happens to have one of the best and also one of the most off-the-wall senses of humor then continued to say:

"I actually hate grass---I just hate it because it's always doing one thing or another that tries to stand in the way of what I consider to be ideal playabliity. What I really love is this golf course and how it performs with ideal playability."

It shouldn't be lost on us (as was confirmed yesterday) that he also happens to be talking about "playability" that is a virtual replication of what I've tried to define as the Ideal Maintenance Meld (IMM).  ;)

What we need to do is campaign to convince memberships to let these guys do what many more of them may want to do. And for those who just don't want to do it----well, then, I don't care.  ;)

How many supers want to get into this IMM playability if their memberships encourage them to or even just don't stand in their way?

If it's a lot of them, I want to offer a rallying cry that may release them from the constraints that memberships place on them to get to the goal of this ideal playablitiy.

That rallying cry will be the words of that old Negro spiritual that Martin Luther King invoked during the march on Washington:

"Free at last, free at last, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY, I'm FREE AT LAST."




(Oh, by the way, for those who want to join the Crusade, in some cases and in some applications get used to asking for the money and for the supers who want to join the Crusade, don't plan on going home at 2:30 anymore for the rest of your careers. I'm very sorry to have to add this parenthetical addendum, I don't necessarily like it but it's reality, it's honest and it has to be mentioned to stay honest and realistic).  ;)


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #1 on: May 26, 2007, 10:00:28 AM »
Tom,

As you and I have discussed before, playability alone is what drives a very few superintendents to do what they do. Is it part of every supers' regime? Of course, but too many times aesthetics are the primary focus of an owner, membership or greens chairperson. That, of course, feeds down through the ranks. We have been in a "look at me" culture of golf course judging for far too long.

There is a movement amongst a few supers, an architect and some university/ foundation folks here in Michigan to research some of the issues around sustainable, playability driven golf course maintenance. Key issues that are going to be looked at will be irrigation regimes, fertility levels, turf species, thatch management, etc. The focus will be firstly on how to manage differently than the current norm, and what effect that has on the input side of course maintenance. The ball really got rolling (pun intended) at the GCSAA conference in Anaheim in February, with several meetings with folks from the Michigan Turf Foundation, Michigan State University, and the Director of GCSAA's Environmental dept.

Obviously, it is most supers' busy season, but there is an email list of ongoing communication that we would be glad to add other supers or industry influencer's to, if they feel  they could benefit or contribute.

I usually downplay my efforts at my course, because it is a mom and pop operation that doesn't show up on anyone's radar. But, I have to say that many of the underlying principles of playability and agronomics have been fully propagated in my ten years of efforts. The differences in how the course plays, how little input it requires and how tough the turf is, is startling to me even though I have witnessed it myself.

I'll tell you what...a big thing you could do would be to convince people like Pat Mucci to come visit me when they come to Michigan to play Kingsley (a great, great example of what we're talking about, btw) and Crystal Downs. In fact, I know Pat has tentative plans to visit a friend in my home town, so for him it would be very simple.

Keep up the communication with the supers. The biggest thing missing from this whole thing  is allies.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #2 on: May 26, 2007, 10:24:37 AM »
Joe:

There is no quesiton to me that what is happening in Michigan, with Crystal Downs (Morris), Kingsley and DeVries, the state universities and particularly through GCIS is really hallmark---it may be a wateshed move in America.

I came out to Michigan for just that purpose last time. I was in touch with gcisinc.com too and I suggest everyone on here check into that website----it's pretty amazing where they are trying to go with it.

My particular interest at that time was its greenspeed analysis program---a virtual blind taste test via playability across entire memberships.

I think that alone is hugely valuable, and I tried to promoted it, to sell its techinque and procedure anywhere I could.

But, you know what, I got almost total resistance trying to promote it all the way from my own golf chairman and other golf and green chairmen to Tom Doak. I think TomD said he felt that even that could produce speeds that were still too high. I don't think that's the point at all. I think the point is that this procedure can serve to actually bring speeds back down to a degree that failing to use it would never be able to do.

I don't know what's going on here---whether people just don't want to completely understand it or whether they just want to do things always their own unique way even if that means trying to go in virtually the same direction as GCIS is trying to go. All I want to see is for things to actually start to get done more prevalently this way whatever the mechanisms used.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2007, 10:30:21 AM by TEPaul »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #3 on: May 26, 2007, 10:45:57 AM »
Tom P:

How is that green speed initiative working at reducing speeds on great courses around America?

Has it stopped clubs like Merion from talking about recontouring some greens for championship play?  The USGA's approach there is apparently to pick a number (13) and then analyze which greens need to be reworked in order to use that speed.  

That's why I'm afraid of the green speed analysis program.  It's not that I don't sympathize with your goal -- I've been trying to fight against increasing green speeds for 25 years and I have yet to see a single bit of progress.

There are some people in Washington who oppose letting Iran have nuclear enrichment capability on the same grounds.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2007, 10:54:17 AM by Tom_Doak »

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2007, 10:46:50 AM »
Here's a list of the best "playability" supers I know who are actually doing it, can do it in a heartbeat because they completely know how. I'm going to add to the list one at a time and maybe in a week my list will be complete of all those I know who are logically only in and around my region because that's what I mostly see and know. Others should start their own posts and lists on some of the real "playability" supers out there they know about;

1. Scott Anderson--Huntingdon Valley GC.
                          Personally, I've got to put Scott Anderson at the top of the list of the "Playability" or IMM Hall of Fame because he's done it longer than anyone I'm aware of and he was actually the first to tell me that this could be done on a consistent basis, weather premitting, of course (although he says he learned it from a guy in New Jersey who's done it longer than him). We're talking over twenty years ago, maybe even twenty five years now and back then he was out there virtually all alone with no one really to turn to for advice in the business, including the USGA back then. Becausr of that what he did could truly be termed OJT (on the job training)!

2. Bill Salinetti---NGLA
                     The firm and fast "playability" on this golf course may be some of the most impressive out there day in and day out. Is it getting near the extreme for the health and well-being of the golf course? I don't know, it may be---one would need to ask Bill about that. The point is the membership is demanding it and he's really producing it. If you want to see what extreme firm and fast playability is all about I'd recommend you try Oakmont right now and NGLA.

3. John Zimmers----Oakmont
                        I only know him slightly but I've been out there some recently and Oakmont which of course is about three weeks from the US Open is about the ultimate in ideal playability. The thing to notice about a course in this condition is how super fast it is throughout even though it's not brown. It has that hue I call "The light green sheen" that is an unbelievably awesome look but which is generally an indication of big budget clubs that have huge resources and manpower. The best of the supers I know who've seen Oakmont in the last few years say that JohnZ may be the one who's at the very top of their game right now.

4. Matt Shaeffer---Merion GC
                       This guy's the best. What an attitude and what a sense of humor about his job and his course. He said: "To maintain a course like this one this way you almost have to be married to it." He said he basically hates his grass because he loves his course so much, particularly this way, and he says his grass sort of likes to stand in the way of that unless he really pays attention to all its little and odd idiosyncracies with the goal of basically balancing them all out. He says he needed to get all of it on the same page or at the same table, so to speak, so it doesn't have to be constantly micro-managed individually ten ways to Sunday. I can't remember if he said the grass on the 11th or the 15th green is having a family spat with the grass on 13th green right now, but he might have. Matt is also about the best and most willing advisor to other clubs who want advice that we know of. He tells them the entire truth about the entire thing including the money if they think they want to do and need to do what Merion East is doing---and if they can't or don't want to spend that kind of money then they need to learn to understand the best they can get with what they have. That "light green sheen"? You should see Merion East that way right now.

5. John Goesslin---Aronimink GC
                   I think John has done a wonderful job in the last two years on the F&F playability of Aronimink. I really like his style towards his job. It seems like he works to simplify the business of agronomy rather than complicate it.

6. Mark Michaud---Shinnecock GC
                   I get the feeling there is nothing at all Mark can't handle. He's got an aura of confidence that would be hugely comforting to any club anywhere. Like JohnG it seems like he tends to simplify issues rather then unnecessarily complicate them but I guess that's something that does come with real talent and confidence. Personally, I'd love to see Shinnecock drier and faster particually "through the green" but apparently the membership really isn't all that into it. But if they do get into it I would love to see that course the way he could deliver it that way.

7. Scott May---Manufacturers GC
              Scott is really into firm and fast playability and has been. Now the membership seems to be really getting into it too. He manages rye grass fairways in Philadelphia. He's one of our best and most willing advisors and question answer guys. The tree removal and Forse restoration project combined with Scott May's superintendency is going to be making Manufacturers "playability" really shine.

8. Bob Sawicki----Gulph Mills GC
                 Bob was Mike Smith's first assistant and he took over from Mike a couple of years ago. Mike began to transition the course into firm and fast playability after about 20 years of basically over-irrigation. I think we are most of the way home now and the course is really getting the attention of golfers now who say they can't remember it playing this good. Bob is really into it---it's his goal.

9. Donnie Beck----Fishers Island GC
                 Donnie manages one of the last of the great American golf courses that basically has minimal to no fairway irrigation. The course therefore sort of represents the look and play of Nature's weather spectrum and it can get very cool to play and to see when dry spells hit. Fishers Island must be one of the closest things to some of the great old courses of GB courses because of this. A summer or two ago Donnie claimed he had his fairways bouncing and rolling to the tune of about 100 yards! Donnie fishes a lot.  ;)

10. Matt Burrows---New Haven CC
                        I shouldn't say that no super tries to ultra dry out his course without the membership on board. Actually Matt did. ;) This guy is crazy, but that's what it takes sometimes. If the membership actually did give him a real F&F green light, watch out, New Haven would be unbelievable.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 09:58:34 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2007, 11:03:55 AM »
"Tom P:
How is that green speed initiative working at reducing speeds on great courses around America?"

TomD:

I can't answer that because I wasn't able to convince anyone around here to use it. But that doesn't mean I don't think it would work very effectively to help reduce excessive greenspeeds.

Ask GCIS how they think the results of their initiative is working. Even ask Mike Morris how he thinks it's working at Crystal Downs. He virtually created the idea and the "blind taste test" playability membership procedure.

My point is I think their procedure can and does work well to reduce excessive greenspeed. I just can't seem to convince anyone to even try it, apparently including you.

The reality of this system put into effect is that a membership is going to get what they want in greenspeed playability and they'll get it even though they aren't aware of the stimpmeter number along the way. That's most of the point of this procedure---eg it isn't driven just by the goal of some stimpmeter number, it's driven strickly by playability of the architecture of the present course's greens.

The point is too many golf clubs are and are trying to run higher and higher stimp numbers and they're just too high for their memberships and their memberships know that.

So what happens in the end? Clubs and memberships try to stick with the higher stimp number and they start to redesign greens to keep that number playable.

This GCIS very much can prevent that if anyone will try it and let it.

Everyone should at least try this procedure---give it a chance. I realized I was really up against it trying to promote it successfully when I couldn't even convince you of its usefulness because the fact is there is no question at all that you and me and GCIS are on completely the same page here when it comes to excessive greenspeeds and in the direction greenspeeds should be going which is down and not up.

What we should not be arguing about at this point is where we individually feel they should ideally end up. We should only focus for now on getting them down from where they're  excessive or might become excessive for entire memberships.

What we are trying to do here in the end is to prevent greens from being redesigned in the name of excessively high green speed for greens the way they are now.

Another problem I see is too many people seem to assume there's only one way to do things---generally their way. I don't believe that. GCIS is just one way. If you can convince a membership or club to do it on your own with your way then fine. Any way or any procedure that serves the goal of getting them down and not up is fine with me. Throw twenty different ways at a club, including GCIS, I don't care. Just go in the right direction with anything that will effectively work towards that goal.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2007, 11:17:47 AM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #6 on: May 26, 2007, 11:31:04 AM »
"I usually downplay my efforts at my course, because it is a mom and pop operation that doesn't show up on anyone's radar. But, I have to say that many of the underlying principles of playability and agronomics have been fully propagated in my ten years of efforts. The differences in how the course plays, how little input it requires and how tough the turf is, is startling to me even though I have witnessed it myself."

Joe, TE

this topic is of real interest to me, but probably not for the reasons it is to both of you. I don't want to side-track the discussion, but Joe, I'd be curious to know more about what your experiences have been with this on your particular 'mom and pop' operation, e.g.

Ten years ago, did you articulate/explain to the owners what direction you wanted to take the maintenance practices? What was their reaction? Did they understand what you were after, and what the benefits were? What ARE the key benefits for owners such as these of your approach? As the years passed, what kept the owners "on board" with your approach? Have there been any rough spots along the way, either in terms of what was actually happening to the turf or in terms of how that was perceived? Finally, what do the golfers say about it? Have you noticed any change in the way golfers respond to the maintenance practices and playability over the years?

Lots of questions, Joe, but I hope at least of few are relevant to the thread. Oh, I just realized that I’ve assumed you’re not also the owner, the ‘pop’ of the operation. I guess it would change a lot of the questions/answers if you were.

Thanks
Peter    
« Last Edit: May 26, 2007, 05:19:27 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2007, 03:38:12 PM »
 I was looking through some U.S.G.A Greens Section research and came across the following article by Thomas Nikolai, who has done considerable work with the GCS at Crystal Downs regarding green speeds,

Thomas A. Nikolai
Michigan State University

"Investigating green speed and superintendent perceptions (2006 - )3

"The underlying premise of this research
was to initiate a continuous green speed
database that reflected putting green
topography with golfer green speed surveys
at each course. The surveys simply
asked the golfer to rate the speed of the
greens at the end of their round as being
either too slow, slow/ok, ok, fast /ok, or too
fast. The idea was that collecting real
world green speed data and golfer surveys
and correlating them to topography and
numerous turfgrass agronomic practices
would assist in communication necessary
between the golf course superintendent
and his/her clientele.

"The original idea was that golfer
surveys would lead to the most contoured
putting surfaces resulting in the slowest
green speeds. However, this outcome
could not be obtained because green committees
did not allow the superintendent to
take golfer surveys and size of maintenance
budgets most likely had a great deal
of outcome on the overall green speed at
each golf course.

"As the golf course maintenance
budget increases from $300,000 to
$500,000, the average increase in speed
was 29 inches (Table 1). However, when
the golf course’s annual maintenance
budget increased above half a million dollars,
average green speed did not increase.

"It is commonly believed that
reducing mowing heights will always
result in green speed gains. In this particular
study the mowing height that resulted
in fastest putting surface was 0.120-inches
(Table 2). The cutting height of 0.105 was
the most commonly reported mowing
height below 0.120. No mowing height
reported in this study resulted in faster
greens speed than 0.120 inches. At some
point, lower mowing heights results in putting
surfaces that are less uniform due to
loss in density which, in turn, diminished
ball roll distance.

"In this study, superintendents
were given six different putting green
species and asked to rate them according to
green speed. Winter overseeded bermudagrass
resulted in the slowest speed
although it differed by only 1-inch over
non-overseeded bermudagrass. The turfgrass
species that resulted in the fastest
perceived overall green speed was Poa
annua.

"Although the amount of data in
this study was not sufficient to draw conclusion
due to the limited number of superintendents
surveyed, the data suggests that
further data collection at more golf courses
may be warranted."

I find it interesting that good old Poa annua was judged to be the fastest turfgrass speices, albeit in an incomplete survey.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2007, 04:28:46 PM »
Steve,

Guess what Tom Nikolai's response was when I asked him about the effects of irrigation regime variances, as it pertains to rolling and mowing practices and green speed? He had no idea, because the variable of water wasn't considered in his recent study on rolling and mowing heights.

I find the comment about the correlation between money and speed very indicative of our industry. But, guess what? I had my greens rolling around 10 1/2 a couple weeks ago, at a mowing height of .145" (Toro triplex) and no need need to empty grass clippings until all 19 greens were mowed. The primary reason? Yep....water management......I won't tell you my budget, because you'll automatically assume my course conditions are poor, which isn't the case at all.

Peter,

I will share more in time, but a certain architect I am associated with is pushing me to produce an essay outlining my practices and findings. I think the intent is to some day have it posted on GCA.com as a "My Opinion" piece.  Yes, I am the "pop" in our operation, although there is no "mom". I have a partner, who is a PGA pro and handles office duties, while I do my thing on the course. He loves me when I tell him the roots in our fairways are 30" deep in places, then fusses at me when he plays on Tuesday night and his lob wedges don't "stick". Of course, I point out to him is error in playing the wrong shot for the conditions....

Also, Peter, in all honesty...when I came to my present course, I didn't think I was going to utilize my talents, as I understood it at the time. What I grew to understand was that I was in a unique position to push some envelopes without fear. I wasn't going to fire myself for some turf loss or brown grass. I allowed the grass to go to varying, and sometimes scary, levels of drought stress to see what it could withstand. Ten years into it now, I find it almost impossible to kill the grass on my greens. I use very little in the way of fungicides and fertilizers. I intentionally verticut (physical injury to the plant) during times of heat and drought stress. I believe in natural selection......

Hopes this starts some gears turning, if nothing else.....

Joe
 ;D (almost obligatory)
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2007, 04:56:30 PM »
Steve,

Guess what Tom Nikolai's response was when I asked him about the effects of irrigation regime variances, as it pertains to rolling and mowing practices and green speed? He had no idea, because the variable of water wasn't considered in his recent study on rolling and mowing heights.

I find the comment about the correlation between money and speed very indicative of our industry. But, guess what? I had my greens rolling around 10 1/2 a couple weeks ago, at a mowing height of .145" (Toro triplex) and no need need to empty grass clippings until all 19 greens were mowed. The primary reason? Yep....water management......I won't tell you my budget, because you'll automatically assume my course conditions are poor, which isn't the case at all.

Peter,

I will share more in time, but a certain architect I am associated with is pushing me to produce an essay outlining my practices and findings. I think the intent is to some day have it posted on GCA.com as a "My Opinion" piece.  Yes, I am the "pop" in our operation, although there is no "mom". I have a partner, who is a PGA pro and handles office duties, while I do my thing on the course. He loves me when I tell him the roots in our fairways are 30" deep in places, then fusses at me when he plays on Tuesday night and his lob wedges don't "stick". Of course, I point out to him is error in playing the wrong shot for the conditions....

Also, Peter, in all honesty...when I came to my present course, I didn't think I was going to utilize my talents, as I understood it at the time. What I grew to understand was that I was in a unique position to push some envelopes without fear. I wasn't going to fire myself for some turf loss or brown grass. I allowed the grass to go to varying, and sometimes scary, levels of drought stress to see what it could withstand. Ten years into it now, I find it almost impossible to kill the grass on my greens. I use very little in the way of fungicides and fertilizers. I intentionally verticut (physical injury to the plant) during times of heat and drought stress. I believe in natural selection......

Hopes this starts some gears turning, if nothing else.....

Joe
 ;D (almost obligatory)
Joe,
Good post...
Another supt Butch foust just purchased a course I did in 1992...Butch was the director of golf maintenance for Reynolds Plantation for over 12 years and was at ANGC b4 that.....as you can imagine the course he purchased is a public golf course where the budget is more like what you mention....his conditions are the best in town.....

TomP,
David Stone the honors course in TN is another playability guy.....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Peter Pallotta

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2007, 05:15:57 PM »
Joe - thanks.

If I'm understanding you right, it's taken you less than ten years (and maybe much less than that) to get your turf to be nearly heat-and-drought-resistent; to need/use very little in terms of water, fertilizer, and fungicides; and to give you great flexibility in terms of the course's playability, e.g. fast greens if and when you want them, and firm conditions throughout...and all this within the maintenance budget of a "mom and pop" operation.  

If so, I can't see any downsides at all. Am I missing something? Are there/have there been any downsides? Might there be in the future?

Oh, and if so, I have to ask: what do you DO with yourself all day long, what with the course taking care of itself like that? I'm thinking you've "engineered" the greatest job in the world for yourself! ;D

Peter    

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2007, 05:25:54 PM »
Hmmmm....what do I do all day?... ;D

Yesterday, in preparation for the holiday weekend, I did a little mowing in the morning, then came home and grilled a hamburger(blackening seasonings and bleu cheese) for lunch, then went bass fishing in the ponds at the golf course in the afternoon.

Joe

p.s. This is major difference of opinion I have with Tom Paul. He thinks this IMM thing should be more work, not less.....but don't tell him the truth!
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2007, 05:33:22 PM »
"Joe
p.s. This is major difference of opinion I have with Tom Paul. He thinks this IMM thing should be more work, not less.....but don't tell him the truth!"

Joe:

I'm so glad to hear you say that and it's true, particularly if and when a club will accept some brown and seasonality of look. It's when a club wants the look of that light green sheen and no real browning down when the weather is hot or dry and particularly both. To keep the courses that do that looking that way is what takes the time, the manpower and the money---you've got to admit that. Syringing the way those clubs do isn't a sometimes thing and because it isn't it ain't cheap either.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #13 on: May 27, 2007, 07:08:47 AM »
I had my greens rolling around 10 1/2 a couple weeks ago, at a mowing height of .145" (Toro triplex) and no need need to empty grass clippings until all 19 greens were mowed. The primary reason? Yep....water management......

Peter,

 He (the golf pro partner) loves me when I tell him the roots in our fairways are 30" deep in places, then fusses at me when he plays on Tuesday night and his lob wedges don't "stick". Of course, I point out to him is error in playing the wrong shot for the conditions....

...when I came to my present course, I didn't think I was going to utilize my talents, as I understood it at the time. What I grew to understand was that I was in a unique position to push some envelopes without fear. I wasn't going to fire myself for some turf loss or brown grass. I allowed the grass to go to varying, and sometimes scary, levels of drought stress to see what it could withstand. Ten years into it now, I find it almost impossible to kill the grass on my greens. I use very little in the way of fungicides and fertilizers. I intentionally verticut (physical injury to the plant) during times of heat and drought stress. I believe in natural selection......

Joe
 ;D (almost obligatory)

Joe,

I assume you're in Michigan.
Are you using any plant growth regulators on the greens?

Peter,

You asked about "down sides". Joe says he had to let the grass go through "scary" levels of drought stress, and now, in "less than" ten years, he can't kill the greens.

Take it from me, ten years, or eight, or even six months, is an awful long time to try to hold on to a job while explaining to members why they need to put up with terrifying drought stress levels, let alone explaining to them how they are "playing the wrong shot". I shudder to think how that would go over.

As Joe says, he was in a unique position in that he was superintendent-owner; none of us salaried guys could ever survive that with our jobs.

That's a huge down side, the biggest down side possible to a superintendent.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #14 on: May 27, 2007, 07:33:50 AM »
Steve,

I'm in SW MIchigan, in Grand Rapids.

I use Primo, primarily when the humidity or rainfall has the grass growing too lush for my taste.

I agree with your comments about downsides. The problem I'm having, in terms of us as an industry, is that we aren't at all willing to try to change the maintenance culture, in part because what we are doing is all we know. Most of us got into the business after irrigation systems became commonplace, and fertilizers and chemicals are the way to "fix" turf problems, even in the university's eyes. (Skewed by money, I might add)

A large part of this movement isn't to tout a new methodology...because it really isn't. It's to prove that there is another way, a way that works and is playable, a way that may be forced upon us through regulation and economics some day. I want to help embolden any superintendent who wants to go this route now, rather than later. It can be done, it can be very good, and it can put superintendents back in the drivers seat, as far as the health of the golf course is concerned. You have to agree that todays' culture in golf allows almost everyone apart from the superintendent to dictate programs and procedures. We , as superintendents, have a "take cover" mentality rather than a "take charge" mentality. Obviously, there will be exceptions to the rule.

Taking a long time to reverse the culture of the turfgrass environment is a downside. The time it will take to reverse the culture of the golf course superintendents mindset (industry-wide) is a more daunting prospect.

Thanks for listening,

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #15 on: May 27, 2007, 08:31:05 AM »
Joe:

That last post of yours to Steve should be posted somewhere else than just in this thread. It should be in an "In My Opinion" article on here at least. It pretty much says it all and succinctly.

I think a movement by the superintendent industry could help some but these things can't happen without a club's membership getting on board.

The supers I'm going to eventually list in that post above have all done wonderful jobs at the clubs they work at and in most cases their transition periods to get their grass transitioned over took years to produce this kind of playabiliity we're talking about and defining on this thread.

When I finish my list there will not be a single super or a single club on that list that did what they did or could have without their membership (their club) being behind them. Not a single one.

A movement by superintendents can help but it will never happen at any club or golf course without a membership on board.

The real danger and the real problem as I see it is many more memberships will be asking for this kind of playability but they won't really understand that transition period. We had that problem last year with my club---they didn't understand what it looks like in the worst of times. I feel that was my fault and the fault of the green committee that we didn't explain it properly or explain it comprehensively enough. This year they understand what to expect.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 08:34:38 AM by TEPaul »

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #16 on: May 27, 2007, 09:08:32 AM »
I need to read this whole thread carefully, before getting fully engaged.  A few points:

1.  I also enjoy meeting superintendents.  As a group, I find them very impressive.

2.  Some green mowing heights for you to consider:

Kinloch:  .090-.095"
Pumpkin Ridge:  .125-.135"
Stone Eagle:  .090-.105"
Ballyneal:  .230"

Of these four, Kinloch has the fastest greens by far.

3.  Bill Webster, the super at Pumpkin Ridge, specifically mentions playability when discussing course preparation for members and their guests.

Back in a few hours.  7:10 tee time at Ghost Creek.  Might be windy out there this morning.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 09:10:32 AM by John Kirk »

David Sneddon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #17 on: May 27, 2007, 09:12:38 AM »
We have a local CCFD course, Ambassador GC, now in its' second year of operation.  It's a Thomas McBroom design, and he has done a decent job, given the flat land he had to work with, although some of the holes seem repetitive.

The Superintendent is Dave Cours, and he and his staff keep that course in great condition, firm and fast fairways and firm greens.  I think what is the most interesting point, and one that is probably unusual, is that the Super is also the General Manager.  The Pro and the F&B guy report to him!!!!!!!
Give my love to Mary and bury me in Dornoch

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #18 on: May 27, 2007, 09:22:20 AM »
"The Superintendent is Dave Cours, and he and his staff keep that course in great condition, firm and fast fairways and firm greens."

David:

Most new courses are firm and fast, and some frightenly so. They can lose that though when the grass matures and builds up thatch.

David Sneddon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #19 on: May 27, 2007, 09:29:30 AM »
Most new courses are firm and fast, and some frightenly so. They can lose that though when the grass matures and builds up thatch.

It will be interesting to see how it develops.  I'm planning on playing there once a week, more or less will now be my 'home' course.  It is a faux links (2000miles from nearest ocean  ;D )
http://www.ambassadorgolfclub.com/
Give my love to Mary and bury me in Dornoch

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #20 on: May 27, 2007, 10:00:58 AM »
David:

Have you ever seen a fake "faux" links or even an imitation "faux" links? How about a "Trompe l'oeil" links?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 10:02:32 AM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2007, 10:42:36 AM »
"The real danger and the real problem as I see it is many more memberships will be asking for this kind of playability but they won't really understand that transition period. We had that problem last year with my club---they didn't understand what it looks like in the worst of times."

TE
I don't know if this is a question that is easily answered, or if it's too complex for a response here, but:

What IS that transition period? How long did the "worst of times" last? I'm asking in terms of a given year/golfing season, as I know that the entire/complete transitioning process happens over a period of years.

To give a novice some idea, does the yearly transition last a week, a month? Is it about as long and/or 'disruptive' as the aerating of greens?

I'm trying to understand what a membership at a club like yours is actually being asked to deal with.

Thanks
Peter


 

Don_Mahaffey

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2007, 11:27:09 AM »
I’ve enjoyed reading this thread as the subject is near and dear to my heart.
Joe Hancock and I have had many conversations in the past, no doubt will have many more in the future, and I would also like to see him chronicle his agronomic plan in an “in my opinion” treatise.

About five years ago I played a round of golf at Kingsley with Joe and Dan Lucas. We finished late on a warm June day and some of the grass was starting to wilt a bit. Joe asked Dan if he was going to irrigate and Dan said something like, “no, any grass that dies right now is grass I don’t want”. Now that’s the type of statement we supers like to make in front of each other sometimes to impress, but I believe Dan meant it. He was going to fend off poa by making sure the course was just a little better off than bone dry and he had the courage, and ownership backing, to do it. It was impressive and I think anyone who has been to Kingsley can see the long term benefits of Dan’s agronomic practices.  

In Joe’s case I think it is more a matter of necessity and principle. Courses like Joe’s that exist in an overbuilt environment need to do one of two things. Either they do everything possible to cut costs and take a “minimalist” approach to turf management like Joe has done, or stripe the hell out of everything and try to grab everyone’s attention. Most privately owned daily fees seem to go the latter route, but I think we’re seeing an economy where the less expensive courses are finally learning that cost is what drives the “working class” golfer and a “less input” agronomic plan can work. Of course the #1 mistake they make when they realize this is they think they don’t need a high quality super, when in fact they need one more than ever.

The cost difference between having a course in good shape playability wise and OK shape aesthetically, and one in great shape in both areas is huge. The latter can cost three to four times as much, but pure playability does not cost more. If clubs were willing to give a little on the “looks” side, change the focus to playability, and make sure they had a super who plays the game and understands what that means, they would spend less maintaining their course, not more.  And I also believe the courses over time would develop a consistency in conditions that almost everyone would appreciate, along with stress resistant turf that would weather what mother nature dishes out much better than turf that is over-managed and relies on chemical remedies whenever adverse conditions are present.  
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 11:43:45 AM by Don_Mahaffey »

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2007, 11:30:12 AM »
Peter:

The "transition period" as I'm trying to use it on this thread is basically the period of time it takes to transition a golf course's agronomy from years of over-dependence on excessive use of chemicals and fertilizers and over irrigation.

Generally that involves getting the roots down deeper (constantly over-irrigated turf does not need deep roots because it's constantly getting water on top and it's growing medium is moist) and that can take a few years to establish.

When roots get deeper and the grass plant is not so dependent on artificial means of chemicals and such it begins to develop again it's own natural defense mechanisms.

The entire subject of "dormancy" I think is largely misunderstood by people not in the business of agronomy.

Dormant grass goes brown but if the grass is conditioned over a period of time to be tougher and to fend for itself naturally that brown dormancy is just its way of shutting down to protect itself. Dormant brown grass is not dead grass although practically all golfers think it is. If dormant brown grass is given water it will be green again in a couple of days.

That's just one of many factors but it's possible to extend the period of time grass can remain dormant and then snap back.

Grass, like any other living thing just takes time to recondition from some degrees of artificial dependency back to a more natural state of survival.

If you let a golf course that has been kept constantly in a lush green state through over irrigation and over dependence on fertilizers and chemicals go brown, it really hasn't established the ability to stay dormant over an extended period of time and when it starts to brown out that grass will die pretty quickly.

« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 11:35:28 AM by TEPaul »

Don_Mahaffey

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2007, 11:33:58 AM »
John Kirk,
Usually Supers are very hesitant to disclose mowing heights because they end up being used for comparison purposes. Problem is, unless the same brand mowers are used, set up by the same mechanic, using all the same front and rear rollers, and used on the same type of grass, the comparisons are really meaningless.

Throw out Ballyneal, new course with a type of grass that is almost always maintained at a significantly higher height of cut, and the other three are all really in the same ballpark.

The only way to truly measure the HOC from one course to the next is with the use of a prism gauge.


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back