[Patrick_Mucci]

"lost" like in going, going, gone.[/b]

I would therefore point you to George Pazin's new series on maintenance. Week #1 I believe, which taught us that grass does not come close to going going gone.

If that's the case then Superintendents have nothing to fear, in hot weather they can cut their greens very low and roll them without the need to water them.

That's great, perfect conditions while eliminating the cost of water.

Have you proposed this method to anyone yet ?

It first goes dormant, then after the crown is either frozen or dried out, will die.

Grass is self preserving tough stuff. 

Really ?
The people at Quaker Ridge would have been pleased to find out that their dead greens, didn't really die.

The purple hue at Shinny in '04 and then again at Hoylake, when it was browned out, was mistakenly called dying grass by many bozos in the media and in this forum.

"Dying" is a process.
Had # 7 continued to be maintained as it was, without water, there's no doubt that the process would have come to its ultimate end.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I now have a few minutes to address your confusion and help point you in the right direction .

You quoted in a previous answer

‘I think I've been, and continue to be, consistent and non-contradictory.’

But have also stated

‘You can do it until you're blue in the face, the french drain will continue to sink.’

Closely followed in a following answer

‘I never said that French Drains sink forever, but, you and I know that they sink for a good amount of time.  And, the more you fill them, the less efficient they become.’

‘Until your blue in the face’ seems quite alot longer than a good amount of time.

It is, but, it's not "forever" which is what you said I stated.

French drains sink over time, and as they're refurbished, that too will sink.
It's an ongoing process and the more you fill and seed, the less efficient the french drain becomes.  You know it, I know it and anyone with field experience knows it.

A correctly built french drain will only settle about 1/2".

That's nonsense.
First, you insert a disengenuous qualifier, "a correctly built".

Fact is, French Drains are built in house and often by minimum wage workers.  Guys in white suits in a sterile environment with precision instruments aren't building french drains.

I've seen french drains sink 3, 4 or more inches.

A USGA green is built the same as a well built french drain, it is just the dimensions that are a little different.

Baloney.
Are you going to sit there and posture that the great majority of french drains have been and continue to be, built to USGA green specs ?

In addition, most USGA greens are built above grade, french drains are built below grade, subterrainian.

Your quote ‘You may recall that you admitted to misreading several portions of the text. Perhaps that remains a problem for you  ’

This might be true, maybe I am slightly word dyslexic but because when I see a mistake that I have made I can also admit it, this means I can learn from my mistakes.

I haven't seen any evidence of that

Your tatic of never admitting mistakes (yes, I know you will say you do ) leads to you contradicting yourself.


I haven't contradicted myself and I haven't made any mistakes on this thread.

I have however found where your problem might lie!

Your quote

‘The trend in the U.S. and in the Northeast is toward firm & fast greens, hence, they get mowed fairly low.  Some are rolled as well.’

Patrick, the title of this thread is ‘One of the prime difficulties in preparing a course to be F & F is’ maybe you just misread what you wrote or is it a typo

Your mistake, which you admit to many of, is that that's NOT the title of this thread, only part of it.  You conveniently left off the critical part, which is the FOCUS of this thread. 

Let me quote the title of this thread for you:
 
"One of the prime difficulties in preparing a course to be F & F is THE SOFT FAIRWAY IN FRONT OF THE GREEN.

Let me repeat the part you left off,  "THE SOFT FAIRWAYS IN FRONT OF THE GREEN".

F&F is to do with how the entire course plays and not just the greens.


I already stated that.

A course can have greens stimping at 9’ and still play F&F. In order for the green and surrounds to play the same the sward needs to be similar, the cutting heights need to be similar, the rootzone needs to be similar and the maintenance needs to be similar. I would suggest that one or probably more of theses points are not the case at your course.

The cutting heights do NOT have to be similar, and in fact they aren't similar.

I've played a fair amount of golf over the years and have yet to see fairways cut to green height, or anything close to green height.
Can you name 10 courses with greens that stimp at 9, 10, 11 or 12 where the fairway and green heights are similar ?

You're delusional on that issue.

Look at all these things again Patrick and in an honest fashion. Then provide prove instead of  just putting other peoples opinions down.
In this thread, there have been many suggestions from several people about possible solutions.

"Possible" ?

Another interesting qualifier.


What have you suggested???

Go back and reread the thread, the answer is there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

The GCBAA will probaby use your "correctly built" quote to push contractors doing more of the renovation. I agree that many supers don't compact correctly, mostly for lack of equipment to do the job.  Trenches can be compacted well, though.  Ask JK how well his road crews have to compact pipes under the road.

Once again, you would fill the last six inches with sand, not soil.  I agree that french drains function worse over time. I have seen crews strip back the sod if a thatch layer develops, or pursue aggressive core aerifying in the tile area.

Lastly, if you are so paranoid about french drains, there are always slit drains that can be pulled in with much less damage and virtually no trench width. I don't think they are as effective as french drains, but they have their place on existing clubs not wanting to diminish their playing condions.

[Pat Brockwell]

I would like to add another comment about approaches that don't release a shot onto the green.  Usually the shot is too high of a trajectory!  Not many (VERY few) players are able to club up and swing down to hit the right shot.  It's not always the course...

[Greg Chambers]

We had this issue of soft approaches.  We have nasty clay soil directly surrounding the greens, and it seemed they would never dry out enough.  We have full circle heads around the greens, and changing those was not an option.  We do have single head control on our irrigation system, and through spending time watching the watering cycle we were able to identify heads in front of and around the greens that were causing the wet issues.  We have adjusted these heads to run for much less time, or not at all.  Problem solved, at no extra cost to the club.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

As I look at the issue, the solution seems to lie, not within the confines of the greens, approaches and surrounds, but, in the Committee and Board rooms.

Until clubs/memberships embrace brownish/yellowish/greenish turf, I don't see the approaches getting firmed up.

There seems to be a fixation with emerald green greens in the U.S., especially in the NorthEast.

So many times, when I've been on a green that's in great shape and putts well, that's brownish/yellowish/greenish, I've heard members of my group state that the green is in terrible shape and needs to be tended to.

As long as that headset prevails, you'll never get the approaches F & F.

It seems apparent that it's not an agronomic issue, but, a political/cultural issue.

Greg Chambers,

What was the impetus to get you to address the issue ?

Was it a few golfers, the Green Committee, Board, or your own doing ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Attitude is great, but technology is necessary.  As Greg Chambers just pointed out, in the USA we don't always have the sandy soils that they had when the game started, but we build sand greens next to clay soils. And, we need to irrigate some in most climates.

Too many clubs have tried to solve too many problems by firing the super rather than give him/her the tools they need to do the job they want.  That's the attitude I would like to see changed.

[Greg Chambers]

It was my own dissatisfaction with the playing conditions.  Once it was addressed, the members loved it.  The next step was weening them off the lush conditions throughout the rest of the course.  It was designed to play fast and firm, with only a couple of greens with fronting bunkers, so firming the approaches was necessary for the course to play the way it was intended.  Now it does, unless we get rain, or in our case tonight, snow.

[TEPaul]

"As I look at the issue, the solution seems to lie, not within the confines of the greens, approaches and surrounds, but, in the Committee and Board rooms.

Until clubs/memberships embrace brownish/yellowish/greenish turf, I don't see the approaches getting firmed up.

There seems to be a fixation with emerald green greens in the U.S., especially in the NorthEast."



Pat:

I see it differently from that and have for a while now. Sure there will probably always be plenty of courses over here that will stick with programs that use massive irrigation on their courses but the point is in the last decade or so a really impressive number of courses, and some of the best in the country, have gotten into firm and fast programs where they didn't have them a decade of more ago.

There are probably a few dirty little secrets here though. No club coming out of a years long massive irrigation program should expect if they just turn down the water they will get acceptable firm and fast immediately. If a club tried that it will inevitable kill most of their turf.

It takes maybe 3-5 years at least to transition the grass over to the leaner, drier program. I guess in an agronomic way the deal it this transition period basically stretches out the duration time grass can go dormant and then bounce back with natural rain.

But the real dirty little secret I think is that it takes a pretty big budget club to maintain really firm and fast conditions that have what I call that "light green sheen." That takes a lot of manpower and a lot of syringing hours. Syringing is not technically irrigating---it's basically just cooling.

It's the clubs that don't have those budgets and manpower that are the ones who will see some real browning out, and even though that is just the grass in extended dormancy most members and clubs think it's dead grass.

If the turf has been transitioned correctly over time to much less irrigation it is not dead and it will come right back after a rain. Very few club members understand that at this point, in my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I see it differently from that and have for a while now. Sure there will probably always be plenty of courses over here that will stick with programs that use massive irrigation on their courses but the point is in the last decade or so a really impressive number of courses, and some of the best in the country, have gotten into firm and fast programs where they didn't have them a decade of more ago.

I think those programs were accidental or derivitive, emanating from substantive tree clearing programs.

Sunlight and air circulation are critical elements in achieving F & F.

If a green sits in the shade for most of the day, it's doubtful that you'll achieve F & F for the entire day.

Tree removal can be the first field step in striving for F & F

There are probably a few dirty little secrets here though. No club coming out of a years long massive irrigation program should expect if they just turn down the water they will get acceptable firm and fast immediately. If a club tried that it will inevitable kill most of their turf.

I think that's where the danger lies.
That a club or clubs will go to an extreme, become very unsatisfied with the result, and revert back to their old ways.

It takes maybe 3-5 years at least to transition the grass over to the leaner, drier program. I guess in an agronomic way the deal it this transition period basically stretches out the duration time grass can go dormant and then bounce back with natural rain.

You can't underestimate the role and time frame that Mother Nature will be responsible for.

As to your time frame, I believe that the current and evolving financial crisis will fast track it.  I see 2-3 years as becoming the norm under the current economic conditions once clubs are in the survival mode.

But the real dirty little secret I think is that it takes a pretty big budget club to maintain really firm and fast conditions that have what I call that "light green sheen." That takes a lot of manpower and a lot of syringing hours. Syringing is not technically irrigating---it's basically just cooling.

I don't agree with that.  And, I don't think that's an option in the current and foreseeable economic climate.
Clubs are going to have to reduce budgets, some drastically, because revenues will fall as members withdraw and new members aren't joining.

Years ago, when F & F was the norm in the summer, budgets weren't bloted.

The transition may require some TLC, but, I can't imagine a club committing substantive funds to go to F & F in these times.

It's the clubs that don't have those budgets and manpower that are the ones who will see some real browning out, and even though that is just the grass in extended dormancy most members and clubs think it's dead grass.

The OLD members, like me, remember browned out fairways every summer.
It's those members with no historical perspective that will resist and rebel against discoloration, especially if they're watching the PGA Tour every week.

Once members experience and learn that discoloration isn't a bad thing, and that they're getting more distance, they'll accept the conditions, and may even embrace.  But, this will take time and education.

If the turf has been transitioned correctly over time to much less irrigation it is not dead and it will come right back after a rain. Very few club members understand that at this point, in my opinion.

I'd agree with that.
But, they're not going to have a choice.

At a club that I'm familiar with, with about 220 "A" members, 15 resignations seem apparent, with more to come.
When budgets were prepared for 2009, they were based on revenue from 220 "A" members.  If that number goes to 200 or 180, changes won't be optional, they'll be mandatory if the club wants to survive.

Hence, the dissatisfaction with the discoloration of the grass won't be the issue it might have been when membership ranks were full and life was good.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

What I'm saying is those courses that are getting some really firm and fast playablility consistently but not the browning out are the ones with the big crews and big budgets. That's just a reality. On the other end of the spectrum are courses like Newport, Fishers and Maidstone that don't even have fairway irrigation. If they get a dry summer they just go totally brown but my point is their grass has been so used to that for so long it can basically snap right back after a rain event. Clubs and courses like mine are somewhere between those two extremes. Just our water usage now as with many of the other clubs I mentioned is indicative of that. 5-6 years ago we were putting around 15 million gallons on the course annually, but now we are down to just a little north of 5 million. That took 3-5 years to get to though in the necessary transition period.

What you seem to be talking about are some economic realities but the point is grass really doesn't give a shit about Man's economic realities. If a club tries to take it from massive irrigation to really minimal irrigation immediately it will just check out on us.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Understood, but, better the grass checks out than the clubs themselves.

Your scenario is based on retaining the existing playing conditions.

That won't be the case.

Clubs will reduce budgets and with that, crews, chemicals, water, etc.,etc..

Superintendents will have to make due, with less.

Golfers will have to accept the less than pristine conditions that they've become accustomed to and spoiled with/by.

Survival is paramount, conditions will be far down the totem pole.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If a massive global shutdown is coming on water, chemicals, maintenance budgets for golf, then that just may be the new reality.

My only point is if a club and course believes this will be happening with them their best policy would be to start soon with transitioning their grass over to that new agronomic culture because it really does need the time to transition for its best chance of longterm survival.

[Greg Chambers]

I don't agree at all that a course needs a big budget to be fast firm and green.  In fact, to achieve true fast and firm, one must not only turn down the water, but also reduce fertilizer inputs.  This in turn could potentially reduce necessary chemical inputs.  As far as syringing, two people could go around in the afternoon and pop on a few overheads in the areas that are prone to dessication when dried out.  We have achieved this fine balance this year, with a staff of only ten including myself and my assistant.

[TEPaul]

"I don't agree at all that a course needs a big budget to be fast firm and green.  In fact, to achieve true fast and firm, one must not only turn down the water, but also reduce fertilizer inputs.  This in turn could potentially reduce necessary chemical inputs."


If clubs can have their courses that way and GREEN too, particularly in hot and dry summer conditions, then why isn't everyone doing it?

Why did golf over-irrigate, over fertilize and over chemical in the first place?

[Greg Chambers]

It all depends on one's interpretation of green.  The reason courses became over watered, fertilized, etc is because golfers wanted glowing green like what they see on TV.  My interpretation of green is with some tints of brown thrown in.  And, quite honestly, supers have always erred on the side of too wet and lush than too dry for fear of losing their jobs, IMO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It all depends on one's interpretation of green. 

The reason courses became over watered, fertilized, etc is because golfers wanted glowing green like what they see on TV. 

My interpretation of green is with some tints of brown thrown in. 

And, quite honestly, supers have always erred on the side of too wet and lush than too dry for fear of losing their jobs, IMO.

I think all of your points are valid, extremely so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()