can we "throttle back our expectations?"

[PThomas]

Rick Spear, the super at Piping Rock, is quoted in GolfWorld:

"Greens are far and away the most expensive components of a golf course on a cost-per-square-foot basis, and there is opportunity for savings, but only if we can throttle back our expectations."

but WOULD most golfers throttle back their expectations, i guess meaning slower-paced greens (or does he mean soemthing else?)

you probably could at some clubs, but not at high end privates

thoughts pls!

[Joe Hancock]

Let's start with throttling back the runaway costs and expectations of today's sand bunkers. Then, if needed, we can talk about throttling back the expectations of greens.

Joe

[JESII]

Let's start with throttling back the runaway costs and expectations of today's sand bunkers. Then, if needed, we can talk about throttling back the expectations of greens.

Joe

Where's the gavel? Where the hell did that gavel go??? Case Closed!

[PThomas]

Let's start with throttling back the runaway costs and expectations of today's sand bunkers. Then, if needed, we can talk about throttling back the expectations of greens.

Joe

Joe - pls explain for those not in the know like me, thanks

[JESII]

It's like seeing that the CEO makes 25 times what the rank and file make and figuring that's the first place to cut expenses...

[John Moore II]

Let's start with throttling back the runaway costs and expectations of today's sand bunkers. Then, if needed, we can talk about throttling back the expectations of greens.

Joe

Joe - pls explain for those not in the know like me, thanks

I would say that we are looking at people insisting bunkers be uniform in texture, depth, etc. and demanding they all be raked daily or every other day. Doing away with stuff like that would allow for a good amount of cost cutting in maintenance budgets.

[Joe Hancock]

Paul,

The requirements put on bunkers, which, as far as I know, are a hazard, are astronomical. The perfect sand from Ohio, the right color, the perfect depth/ texture/ moisture level/ grooming....it goes on and on. Many high end courses have dedicated irrigation systems to water the sand.....it's out of whack.

I think the notion that we should back off green maintenance practices before we address other areas that actually should cut back is a messed up priority.

Joe

[Jimbo]

"Many high end courses have dedicated irrigation systems to water the sand.....it's out of whack."

Word.

[Sam Maryland]

I can't even begin to imagine what it costs to maintain the bunkers at Hamilton Farm...

...at Bethpage they just don't!  (for the most part)

[Bradley Anderson]

I have been tracking costs pretty closely on every feature of the golf course and greens are indeed one of the most costly areas to maintain on my course.

But I think by and large bunkers have become the most expensive area to maintain at most courses, and possibly that is an area where costs could be reduced without compromising the quality of the golf experience.

But square tees are enormously costly to maintain. In fact, at my club, the square tees are more costly to maintain than the greens. Square tees are the number one maintenance area on my course, higher than greens, tees and fairways.

[Bradley Anderson]

Let me add, that moving forward, clubs should consider the cost of square tees before committing to going that route in a renovation.

The kidney shaped and tear dropped shaped tees can be cut with a triplex as opposed to hand cut, and that saves a lot of money.

[Lou_Duran]

Joe,

I am partial to artful bunkering.  I also like for them to contain sufficient sand so that the club doesn't make contact with the soil, gravel, or clay base.  Short of grassing them over, what steps can be taken to minimize bunker maintenance?  Does providing an ample supply of good rakes help?

The greens would be the last place where I would skimp, though if they're firm, smooth, and relatively fast (10' +/-), that's all I care about. 

[Bill_McBride]

Let's start with throttling back the runaway costs and expectations of today's sand bunkers. Then, if needed, we can talk about throttling back the expectations of greens.

Joe

Joe - pls explain for those not in the know like me, thanks

I would say that we are looking at people insisting bunkers be uniform in texture, depth, etc. and demanding they all be raked daily or every other day. Doing away with stuff like that would allow for a good amount of cost cutting in maintenance budgets.

I would say the #1 complaint about our course has always been that the sand in the bunkers is "inconsistent," whether that means some is dry, some wet, some hard, some thin, some thick.......

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,

I am partial to artful bunkering.  I also like for them to contain sufficient sand so that the club doesn't make contact with the soil, gravel, or clay base.  Short of grassing them over, what steps can be taken to minimize bunker maintenance?  Does providing an ample supply of good rakes help?

The greens would be the last place where I would skimp, though if they're firm, smooth, and relatively fast (10' +/-), that's all I care about. 

Lou,

We're in a culture of high expectations, aren't we? It doesn't matter if you permanently attach the rack to the golfers' hands, they'll find a reason not to use them.(not always true)

The sand needs to be replenished occasionally, but does it have to be baby butt smooth and maintained at "perfect" moisture levels and so on to be a functional hazard? No.....

Joe

[Joe Hancock]

Let's start with throttling back the runaway costs and expectations of today's sand bunkers. Then, if needed, we can talk about throttling back the expectations of greens.

Joe

Joe - pls explain for those not in the know like me, thanks

I would say that we are looking at people insisting bunkers be uniform in texture, depth, etc. and demanding they all be raked daily or every other day. Doing away with stuff like that would allow for a good amount of cost cutting in maintenance budgets.

I would say the #1 complaint about our course has always been that the sand in the bunkers is "inconsistent," whether that means some is dry, some wet, some hard, some thin, some thick.......

...and if I was the super at your course, I'd likely be fired for disrespectful sarcasm towards golfers......

[Bill_McBride]

Joe, that complaint is, of course, from the golfers who aren't habitues of GCA.com! 

[Jimbo]

Bill,  to address the inconsistencies of your bunkers, and to make them uniform requires alot of money and work.  Some are deep some shallow, some face the sun, some face north, some get wind, some don't, some get lots of play, some never get hit in,  so they can change daily if not hourly.  To monitor and spend the time and effort to keep up with the changes and adjust each bunker is a task most cant afford, and would be noticed only by a few.

A separate irrigation system would make them uniformly wet. I, ahem, do have some dedicated irrigation to bunkers, which I don't now have the permitted water resources to run with any frequency. Some, me included, have handwatered and rolled certain bunkers.  This is a temporary and ridiculous practice that can't be sustained for daily play unless the club has retarded resources.  It doesn't make financial sense for the overwhelming majority.

There there are the large upfront construction costs either in terms of shaping, lining, trenching, piping, graveling, (sometimes a 4" gravel bed--expensive in our neck of the woods when the nearst gravel is 4 hrs away).  Sand in our neck of the woods is rounded and on the fine side. Selecting the perfect sand from god knows where would help. Yes, Ohio has the best!

Our sand is occasionally called "thin" despite the fact there is 50' of sand below the surface.
Thanks to the economy and common sense, we recently saved about $150k by not "addressing" these "inconsistencies" based on a vocal few who have no idea of the costs. 

They are hazards, and only thousands of dollars of upfront and continuing dollars can please everyone. 

For those who aren't resource-unlimited, spending more than daily labor, and occasional sweetening of sand is unreasonable.

"the #1 complaint about our course has always been that the sand in the bunkers is "inconsistent," whether that means some is dry, some wet, some hard, some thin, some thick......." 

Its a hazard, Bill, stay out of it 


By the way, I pass your course at least twice a week and it always looks uniform and immaculate. It looks very well built and maintained.  Kudos to spraying Tifdwarf with dye instead of overseeding.  I know you had a l role in it, good work.

[Jim Nugent]

Rick Spear, the super at Piping Rock, is quoted in GolfWorld:

"Greens are far and away the most expensive components of a golf course on a cost-per-square-foot basis, and there is opportunity for savings, but only if we can throttle back our expectations."

but WOULD most golfers throttle back their expectations, i guess meaning slower-paced greens (or does he mean soemthing else?)

Maybe he means build smaller greens. 

[Sean_A]

I think Happy Joe is right about the maintenance of bunkers, but the issue goes further.  Why does a course need 75 bunkers? So far as I am concerned, that is likely 35 opportunities to try something different and I bet cheaper to maintain.  That said, greens are running at stupid speeds.  There is no need to run a green at double digits.  If golfers can't be happy with a 9 stimp and some decent contour - screw em' (hows that for charm Pietro?).  Anybody who encourages greens to run in double digits has no leg to stand on when complaining about the cost of the game.   

Signed

Definitely Somebody Who Is Willing To Throttle Back

[TEPaul]

“…but WOULD most golfers throttle back their expectations, i guess meaning slower-paced greens (or does he mean soemthing else?)”


“"Greens are far and away the most expensive components of a golf course on a cost-per-square-foot basis, and there is opportunity for savings, but only if we can throttle back our expectations."




PaulT:

I haven’t read  Rich Spears article you referred to that contains what you quoted above about greens or the cost of maintaining greens, nevertheless I may have a pretty good idea what he may mean because I talked to him about greens a couple of years ago.

I grew up at Piping Rock but even though Rich has been there a long time now I was basically out of there when he arrived so all I know about him and his philosophy is the couple of times I‘ve visited him. Rich does have a great reputation in the world of superintendency and certainly on Long Island. He also happens to have been a very good player for a long time.

Last time I went over to his office we talked a lot about the degree of firm and fast produced on greens. He happened to mention that if he was doing a tournament, particularly one late in the summer during high stress weather that if he was asked to produce really firm and fast conditions on his greens he would basically tell those asking for it (no matter who they were) to pick one or the other but he wouldn’t do both to any real extreme. By ‘pick one’ he meant he would offer either firm OR fast on the greens but not both to an extreme degree so those asking could decide for themselves if they’d prefer firm greens OR fast greens but they weren’t going to get both (to some extreme degree).

So if you ask me what he meant by his remark about greens I’d guess that would be what he meant.

[Adam Clayman]

I too would fail in the diplomacy dept.if anyone complained about bunkers not being raked. My motus would be to pull out the rule book and force them to read the part about leaving the course in better condition than found. Then I'd ask them if they were considerate of others and fixed the observed problem. When they said "no" I'd just look at them in disbelief.

[Doug Ralston]

I won't be playing any upscale privates like 'y'all', but I must admit that if slowing the greens save significant money, I will not be at all heartbroken by it. Of course, the reason is largely because I am a lousy putter on fast greens. Clubs for hands.

My ability to hit out of bunkers is also limited, but I must admit that the nature of the sand is the biggest factor. Does anyone here know what kind of 'sand' they use at Purgatory in Indianapolis? Seems it is like from limestone. It certainly was the most consistent sand i have ever seen or played. But raking is overdone, I agree. Maybe even a slow reversion to grass bunkers [since when are sand pits 'natural' in most places anyway?] would be money saving? No! Not all, just some.

I still think clubhouses are a vast expense well overbuilt. I go to a golf course to play golf. I understand that a private club is about more, but why those huge ornate clubhouses on publics?

Make it fun and beautiful to be there, and slow down on the amenities?

Doug

[jeffwarne]

Joe,

I am partial to artful bunkering.  I also like for them to contain sufficient sand so that the club doesn't make contact with the soil, gravel, or clay base.  Short of grassing them over, what steps can be taken to minimize bunker maintenance?  Does providing an ample supply of good rakes help?

The greens would be the last place where I would skimp, though if they're firm, smooth, and relatively fast (10' +/-), that's all I care about. 

Heck yeah we can throttle back our expectations as long as those greens are firm,fast and smooth and our bunkers are artful and have the right amount of sand. :
 

That kind've says it all.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,  to address the inconsistencies of your bunkers, and to make them uniform requires alot of money and work.  Some are deep some shallow, some face the sun, some face north, some get wind, some don't, some get lots of play, some never get hit in,  so they can change daily if not hourly.  To monitor and spend the time and effort to keep up with the changes and adjust each bunker is a task most cant afford, and would be noticed only by a few.

A separate irrigation system would make them uniformly wet. I, ahem, do have some dedicated irrigation to bunkers, which I don't now have the permitted water resources to run with any frequency. Some, me included, have handwatered and rolled certain bunkers.  This is a temporary and ridiculous practice that can't be sustained for daily play unless the club has retarded resources.  It doesn't make financial sense for the overwhelming majority.

There there are the large upfront construction costs either in terms of shaping, lining, trenching, piping, graveling, (sometimes a 4" gravel bed--expensive in our neck of the woods when the nearst gravel is 4 hrs away).  Sand in our neck of the woods is rounded and on the fine side. Selecting the perfect sand from god knows where would help. Yes, Ohio has the best!

Our sand is occasionally called "thin" despite the fact there is 50' of sand below the surface.
Thanks to the economy and common sense, we recently saved about $150k by not "addressing" these "inconsistencies" based on a vocal few who have no idea of the costs. 

They are hazards, and only thousands of dollars of upfront and continuing dollars can please everyone. 

For those who aren't resource-unlimited, spending more than daily labor, and occasional sweetening of sand is unreasonable.

"the #1 complaint about our course has always been that the sand in the bunkers is "inconsistent," whether that means some is dry, some wet, some hard, some thin, some thick......." 

Its a hazard, Bill, stay out of it 


By the way, I pass your course at least twice a week and it always looks uniform and immaculate. It looks very well built and maintained.  Kudos to spraying Tifdwarf with dye instead of overseeding.  I know you had a l role in it, good work.

My reference to "inconsistent bunkers" was to the old PCC, which was pretty much destroyed by a decrepit irrigation system and finished off by Hurricane Ivan.  The old course dated back to 1925.  The new course was built in 2005-2006 and the bunkers are much more consistent (to the delight of the formerly whining members!).

The dye rather than overseed was a great decision indeed.  Winter Tifdwarf is a great playing surface.

[Joe Hancock]

Sean,

"Happy Joe"? That's so.....wait, it's illegal to say that now....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS0GVOQPs0

Joe