Tim Liddy's article in this week's GW

[PThomas]

a very good and thought-provoking piece :"Links lessons vital to future of American golf"

some excerpts:

"On ecological grounds  links golf has much to teach us.  In terms of sustainable maintenance at an affordable level that's playable for all golfers, America, I'm sorry to say, is lagging far behind.

re overseeding :"It's an expensive and grotesquely wasteful use of resources.

""Sustainability" should be the new buzzword for golf in the U.S.

"If we followed the examples of links golf, our maintenance costs would shrink dramatically .  Dvelopment of courses would cost less.  Green fees would drop significantly.  The benefits to the environment would be considerable.

"But we need to stop building artificial golf courses with cart paths, rangefinders and yardage markers.

"Links golf courses provide the natural, sustainable model for a healthy outdoor exercise.

"Links-inspired golf is the principle of working with nature ,  not against it.  It has become increasingly vital to the future of golf in America that we understand the underlying message and act upon it.

[Brad Klein]

Paul,

yes, Tim's column is a thoughtful account of what's missing in modern American golf and what's so rich in the links golf expereince. The best part is he links play, strategy and aesthetics with sound, simple ecology.

[Brent Hutto]

All of those points appear commendable. Does the article point out any challenges inherent in translating a links-like design and upkeep philosophy to sites with heavy soil and non-existant natural drainage, under assault from hundreds of golf cart wheels per day?

I would think anyone managing or playing a course with sandy soil, cool-season grasses and no golf carts should already be thinking of UK links courses as a model. Perhaps some of them do not, which is a shame. But there must be some finesse involved in developing a form of that philosophy that works at the majority of inland USA courses. For instance, it must surely be easier to sell "Brown is Good" when the payoff for brown is crisp iron shots from firm, tight turf than it is when brown means less cushion under your ball which is sitting on soft, damp topsoil.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Sustainability is a word we’ve heard for a few years in golf course management. It seemed to start with sustainable agriculture and is now something we hear more and more in my field.
UC Davis describes it this way “Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals--environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity”.

In golf we seem to focus on the environmental health part as the primary focus when we talk about sustainability. It is a key component, but without economic profitability, sustainability will just be a buzzword and not a true practice.

I’d like to address the social and economic equity issue. In golf course maintenance, most jobs are low paying and/or temporary and often high turnover is the result. I know there are exceptions, but in reality that is how our business functions. IMO, many courses are overstaffed because of the amount of hand work, “detail” if you like, that is built into the design and part of the maintenance program. The result of a large staff is fewer dollars for each employee as there is only so much $$$ to spread around. If we truly want our courses to be sustainable, we need a competent work force that ‘buys in” to the concept. We need to retain these people and create an environment that is more than a place to earn a check while in between jobs or while looking for something better. If golf courses employee fewer people, but pay them a living wage, then a sustainable work force is possible. It starts with design and ends with a management plan that makes it possible for fewer employees to still keep the course in fine playing condition. It is possible and it has to be a large part of the sustainability push.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - thanks.

Don - I thought that an excellent and insightful post.  "It starts with design and ends with a management plan that makes it possible for fewer employees to still keep the course in fine playing condition." I think that says it all.

Brent raises good questions.  It seems to me that the "Big World" of golf course architecture will have to find various ways to accomodate itself to "sound, simple ecology".

Brad's phrase has a very nice ring to it.

Peter

[Tim Nugent]

Don, you forgot to mention another reason for overstaffed maintenace departments - golfers don't want to be bothered by maintenance.  They want the course all mowed before they get to the 1st tee (or god help us -  and 10th tee).  Used to be that after the greens were mowed (about 3 hrs), those guys would fall back an start cutting fairways, then roughs,  Now it seems they have 3 times the guys so everything can be done at once.  The only problem is they don't want to work for only 3 hrs a day.  So the super has to find other stuff to keep them busy.

Paul, you might find Bill Love's new book on golf and the environment interesting.  Look at ASGCA.org

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tim, your right. We used to mow the greens, set up the course and then for 2nd assignment go out and start mowing or cleaning up the bunkers or what ever needed doing. We would work backwards 18 - 1 so that we never contacted a group more than once and rarely did we get complaints. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

From your excerpts, I kind of agree and in some areas I don't.  For one, the idea of "social equity" being in any way tied to environmental responsibility is a big red flag for me.  It cries out for central govt. control, which I am against.

More specifically, when golf spread from the links land, it had to adapt. Philosophically, I think the early work of the Golden Agers to adapt design to regional differences in the US was the most golden part about their work.

Similarly, I think the challenge is to look at each US region individually and adapt golf to it, rather than use possibly not applicable links models - or any other governmentally mandated national policy - blindly.  Maybe even look at each golf course site individually.

A place like Minnesota that will likely never have a long term water shortage shouldn't necessarily be placed on water restrictions like desert climes.  It would be neat if what is now normal watering of bent fw could be a calling card and distingushing feature of that regions courses.

I understand that in general, he is talking about lesser maintenance and I can be on board with either that, or greater maintenance efficiencies that deliver the current level of product less expensively. 

I could also be on board with just reducing bunker maintenance, which would probably lop three to five people off most maintenance crews! 

Or maintaing courses like Tim N says, more during the day.  The real problem with pre opening maintenance is that the irrigation must be done sooner, so systems that once typically watered a course over two nights time can are now designed with 4X capacity - to water the entire course every night in 4-6 hours (8-10 a night, every other night used to be standard)  And, if your mainline is 16" pipe instead of 8" pipe, you just MIGHT be tempted to overwater and have the ability to do it!

But, we shouldn't forget that golf as an industry, as a result of increased awareness, has been doing many things already without having to give it a label like "sustainability."

[John Kavanaugh]

I am a big fan of Tim having played Cambridge last Sunday and Sultan's Run throughout the year.  My question is...When or where might I see him practice what he preaches?