Course maintenance in northern MI - Does it have to stay wet?

[Mike_Cirba]

From my limited understanding of the soils in northern Michigan, I've been told that the courses there are built on "pure sand", left over from glacial deposits eons ago.

As such, because of the very porous drainage with sand, my understanding is that it is necessary to put a good deal of water on the courses, and understand that an overnite watering in the summer months then requires further irrigation by early afternoon because it would literally be possible for grass to wither and die in that short timeframe.

Because of this, virtually every course I played this past week was on the soft side, with ball marks in the fairway, not much roll, but lots of verdant green color.   

Even High Pointe, which seemed mostly fescue grass in the fairways and was clearly designed to play firm and fast had a ton of water on it by early afternoon, so much so that some bunkers actually had puddles within them.   

One course really stood out as very different from a maintenance standpoint, and that was Kingsley Club, which played screaming firm and fast.   Arcaida Bluffs was also firm enough for use of the ground game.

My somewhat naive question is simply, why?   

This post is certainly not meant to denigrate the wonderful efforts of many of the club superintendents who I'm sure each face their own challenges with micro-climates, grass=types, architectural differences, owner and customer expectations, sun vs shade patterns, etc., but to really understand why the Kingsley model seems to be working so well and perhaps learn how that may be applied (or not) elsewhere.

It just seemed very clear to me this week that the most exciting golf courses are those where the game has only just begun when the ball hits the ground.

Thanks for any insight.

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

There is pretty much no fescue left in the fairways at High Pointe.  Even holes 10-14, which were as sandy as anywhere I've ever worked, are now thatchy and drain poorly due to overwatering and overfertilization, so there is no fescue left in them.

Most of the fairways in northern Michigan are predominantly Poa annua rather than bentgrass.  Being a moderate climate, that shouldn't be much of a problem, but superintendents over-water them to be sure they don't lose their grass (and their jobs).  Most of the time it is completely unnecessary.

The Kingsley Club is indeed a different class.  Dan Lucas their superintendent is as good as they get for keeping a firm and dry fescue surface.  I wish we'd had him at High Pointe -- though I suspect he wouldn't have lasted long with the owners there.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Understood about Kingsley.   

I guess the part I'm trying to understand a bit more is just how "on the edge" is it to maintain grass given the sand-based soil.   I was disappointed to find how soft and even super-saturated so many of the courses were, including High Pointe in places.    I would also imagine that makes them more susceptible to disease, but perhaps not in the shorter, cooler growing season.

I guess the question is whether it takes someone of a Dan Lucas's knowledge and ability to pull it off successfully?   Or, in the case of High Pointe, is the lean maintenance staff part of the problem?   For instance, if they don't have folks who can irrigate by hand later in the afternoon just to keep things alive, don't they just need to turn on the sprinklers again, which seems much heavier-handed and less easily controlled?

My playing partner and I absolutely fell in love with the course, yet felt frustrated that it couldn't play as obviously intended in places.   By the end of the round we were thinking of cutting the water mains. 

Even Belvedere was pretty soft and spongy in spots, which seems anything like the design intent of that cool place.   You can probably imagine how much water was put on the resort and other new, high-end private courses.

[Dan Herrmann]

Here's a provocative question...

Is overwatering and/or overfertilization a way by which an under-qualified superintendant keeps his job? 

[RSLivingston_III]

The courses you point out as wet are all pubilc/resort courses and I think they are all playing to the public perseption of what a great course is supposed to be.

[Adam Clayman]

Mike, That Super in Stanwood was dead wrong about the grass suffocating and dying. That grass would not die in that short period of time. It might go dormant, but dying is out of the question.
 If that strain did die, good riddance.

[JSPayne]

Mike....there are many factors that go in to answering this question. I can't speak for Northern MI, but I can speak for myself, at a public course in northern CA. Many of the same principles still apply.

A couple weeks ago, our course had been on the lean side of nightly irrigation. I definetely had "hot spots" out there, and my GM was concerned for total loss of grass in those places. I assured him that wouldn't happen. I do perscribe to the "firm and fast" mantra often spoke of on here. But the forecast showed us moving into 3 or 4 straight days of over 100F temps, so I cranked up the water a bit to (1) make sure the grass didn't go into the heat hungry for water and (2) to try to help my small maintenance crew keep up with the high heat. As a result, I did feel the course became slightly overwatered and softer, mushy spots as opposed to hot spots started to show up. Yet.......the hot spots went away, the course "greened up" as a whole as a result, and the compliments started flowing in in the pro shop. As you can see, I wasn't completely happy with the conditions from a playability standpoint, but we did LOOK good. And in the eyes of the public golfers that week, I guess that's what mattered.

Also, we have what I consider to be a smaller crew, definetely compared to most high end public/resort or private courses that are often talked about on here. My crew is 13 guys, including me and all summer long, to maintain the firm & fast that I desire, I have to have two guys on different schedules (7am-5pm as opposed to normal crew 4:30am-1pm) that are 100% dedicated to watering the course, mainly by hose and small moveable sprinklers. No other course I've worked at has done this.....and often times you do get the result of the maintenance crew popping on sprinklers all over the place in the early afternoon, right before they all go home, to ensure that the course survives the hottest part of the day in late afternoon.

There really is no GOOD reason for wet conditions......but there are reasons, which sometimes are legitimate and understandable once one understands the maintenance model, goals and demands at that particular course. I would like to think that it really does take a good superintendent and an understanding membership or public to consistantly maintain a firm and fast golf course.

[Mike_Cirba]

JSPayne,

That's a tremendous post and I thank you for your candor.

It seems to me that much of the overwatering situation is due to expectations of a course that looks green, either from the owner, the customers, or the membership.

It feels to me that much like the over-treeing of golf courses, this is something that can be addressed over time through education and economic rationality.   

That's a good thing, but it's going to take some time. 

[JSPayne]

Yeah, I wish I had been around just over a year ago when my course underwent a tree planting program. It's not horrible, but it's turning a somewhat linksy layout into what will eventually look much more parkland.

And the reasoning I got when I asked why all the trees were put in?

"Golfers were complaining there wasn't enough shade on the course."

[Greg Murphy]

On a recent road trip, I played Jeff Brauer's Quarry at Giant's Ridge, Mike DeVries's Greywalls and Tom Doak's Black Forest. Now, I'm not one to rail against green. Really, I don't have anything against green grass and I don't get a kick out of playing off concrete. But these courses were like bogs. I thought the Quarry was soft when my tee shots were sucking back or plugging in the fairway, but Greywalls was as bad or worse and Black Forest has to be one of the softest courses I've ever played, even worse than the other two, which I would not have thought possible. Is this what all the GCA'ers complain about all the time, i.e., the North American golfer's demand for green? I don't get it. It is a helluva lot tougher to play from such mush than from a firm fairway. Who could possibly find this style of maintenance appealing?

[Michael Whitaker]

I played Black Forest on Saturday and could not believe how soft it played. Drives were leaving pitch marks in the fairway, with the ball actually bouncing backwards when it hit the ground. 

A lot of the playability has been taken away from many holes... like #2 where there was no way to use the hill and slope on the left side to feed or kick a ball onto the green... the entire slope is covered in moist rough that will not allow a ball to travel more than a few yards. The course easily played 20% longer than it measured and most of the guys in our group of 24 did not enjoy their experience... most would probably choose to never return. It's a shame because the course could be a lot of fun to play if it were maintained it a way that allowed the ball to bounce and run.

We also played the Treetops courses and while they were softer than I personally enjoy in a good number of places, they were nothing like Black Forest.

Big hits with our group:  The Orchards and the Sharf Course at Oakland University. Both courses had some of the best putting surfaces I have seen this year.

[PThomas]

if the price of water was raised , maybe we'd start seeing less of what you guys are describing

what a freakin waste!

[Dan Herrmann]

Paul - that's just it - it's a waste....

JS - Fantastic posts that educate - thank you!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,

Sorry to hear the Quarry was a bit damp.  They have had some problems over the years in the roughs because the only sod we could acquire reasonably (like most of the sod in MN) was grown on peat based soil. (Peat bogs are cheap land, and thus, attractive to sod farmers)  However, the fw were seeded to bent, and should have little problem, unless there is so much play that the super doesn't take a few extra days to aerify as much as he should, and thatch has built up.

At the Legend, the first super never fully understood his irrigation system.  When we reviewed it after he left, he still had it set to the "grow in settings" of about 20 min per night everywhere, and ran it that way from spring to fall.  Poa crept in quickly and they live with those problems to this day.  I can attest that the first super at the Quarry watered very wisely, after comparing his watering schedule to the actual weather.  They still had some wetness in the roughs as noted above, which would require rough aerification or tiling to correct. I know they have done some of that, but its an ongoing process.

Next time in northern MN, you might try the Wilderness.  I didn't get up there this year, but got some calls after press day about how much drier that course played.  The super there is committed to firm and fast and it shows.

Another good example of spartan watering I know of is Colbert Hills in KS.  The super has never watered more than once every fourth night, even for greens.  They are training some other supers in their new program, so at least we are getting a dozen or so kids coming out of school each year with "the right stuff" about watering.

So, there can be a lot of factors in overwatering besides "attitude."  Grasses, soils, original sod, and original maintenance practices often can lock in a program that the supers just have to live with.  Its not just "expectations" even though that plays a part in it.

[jeffwarne]

As many armchair proponents of "firm and fast" are finding out, it is often WAAAY more expensive to maintain that way, particularly at the high end, UNLESS one is willing to go more a la natural, which may involve dead and or dirt patches in high play/compaction/fast draining areas-and requires cooperation from the weather.

Most people just don't go for that, and the high end courses that try to acheive it via lots of hand watering, aerification, topdressing ,sophisticated irrigation systems--spend a lot of money.

Hopefully, the current golf course depression/recession will convince courses to go for bare spots over mush.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JW,

Given how golfers seem to like conditions that favor their game, I would think a course advertising "more distance!" would be a big attraction.   Forget "brown is beautiful"

How about "rock hard and roll?" 

[John Kavanaugh]

The golfer is the last person to blame for this situation.  A few reasons for this trend in golf which in a relatively new phenomenon:

Raters need to be truthful to owners and supers when visiting a course.  I'm as guilty as anyone in dishing out compliments when hosted at a new course that I will never see again.  But then again, I don't have a responsibility to do anything different. 

How much a super waters is directly related to his salary, education and budget.  Since the first rabbit was shot and replaced with man courses have gotten wetter and wetter.  If you really want firm and fast go someplace very inexpensive to play where the super is the dirtiest guy on the crew.  I'd like to see more mud on the shoes of my super than on my ball.

The internet, organizations like the GCSAA and ease of travel have led to microclimate macroexcuse building.  Show me a super with an excuse and he will show you why whatever he did worked somewhere else in the country.

Turf research allows a super to dream of what only could be if he had the grass his course needs.  It's the ole "It's not you, it's me" excuse to grass growing.

Eliminate well paid over educated supers, raters without the backbone to tell the truth face to face and turf research and every course in the country will run firmer and faster at less cost.

Starve the super, feed the rabbit.

[Adam Clayman]

John, That's just horse shit conjecture on your part about honesty. Believe it or not, I just paid several green fees and on each one I made a comment to the pro about how lush everything was. At one recent course, the pro said they got hammered with rain the day before. But that didn't stop the super from turning on the system that morning. It was a frick'in bog. Good thing the designer did a great job in creating interesting green complexes.

One of the interesting aspects of Boyne's Heather course was how much firmer the raised greens played. While the fairways and surrounds were bog-like, the greens actually dried and one could count on some roll out to  one's shot. So much so, I played two Ballyneal type shots that ended up close. One was a 7 iron from 100 yards and the other was a low 4 iron from about 160. My playing partner kept asking how the hell I did that. All I could say was as a member at Ballyneal he should expect no less.

[John Kavanaugh]

Adam,

I never said every rater blows smoke up the ass of owners and supers.  I know you don't as it took you all of three holes to put my ears between your vice.  You can't seriously believe that everyone is as honest to a fault as you.  The thing about the situation mentioned in this thread is that the supers knew the raters were coming well in advance and gave them exactly what they thought would show the course in the best light.  You need water to create rainbows.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

For the record, this situation was almost universal.   I played four other courses during my trip where there was no advance knowledge that I was coming and almost without exception, the courses played quite soft and wet.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

For the record, this situation was almost universal.   I played four other courses during my trip where there was no advance knowledge that I was coming and almost without exception, the courses played quite soft and wet.

Mike,

Do you agree with my observation that the lower the budget the firmer the course.

[Mike_Cirba]

John,

Honestly, I don't know enough about it to honestly answer, which is why I asked the question.

I can tell you that the course I surmised as having the lowest budget was one of the wettest, and one superintendent at a different course I spoke with speculated hypothetically that they might not have the staff necessary to do more targeted spot-afternoon-watering, thus the heavier-handed (and wetter) approach of turning on the sprinklers again.

[Adam Clayman]

A lower budget should be a badge of honor on a great course. Since many, not all, of the great courses understand the game at a more sophisticated level, the firmer healthier turf should be less expensive to maintain.

[Adam Clayman]

John, I too was unannounced and Mike's observations are thoughtful and correct.

[Eric Smith]

Do you agree with my observation that the lower the budget the firmer the course.

On my trip to upper Michigan last August I didn't experience any soft or wet conditioning as it hadn't rained for 30 days and I guess we happened to choose the right? courses to play.  Mike and Tom have already mentioned Kingsley Club as the exception, and it was nice and dusty on my visit as well, very firm and very fast.  My ball is still rolling there a year later.

Your observation about lower budgets got me thinking that maybe it's not that simple as I also played a couple of days at Forest Dunes in Roscommon which was much more manicured, a beautiful shade of green, nary a weed or browned area to be found yet it too played firm and fast.  I wouldn't pretend to know his budget, but I do believe the super at Forest Dunes has to be as good as any.  I mean that place was incredible in its presentation and I've said it before on here, those greens were mint.