Joe,
No you got it backwards. Now that you’re famous, it’s you who are the celeb in my address book. I’m going to go back and edit your info to just your initials so no one bothers you when my phone ends up in lost and found again.
Ok, serious questions amigo.
At WP we built the golf course and now we take care of it. For the most part same people involved in both activities, with a few specialists thrown in. Why doesn’t this happen more?
Why do so many people spend such stupid amounts of money to build, or renovate golf courses?
In my opinion, conceding there are a few exceptions, it seems like most Golf Architects are closer to being engineers than artists. And because of that we have all these “rules” about what we can and can’t do when we build our courses. Which rules are stupid, and which ones do you like to break?
Maintenance question. Today’s greenkeeping seems to have developed into a series of programs. You have PM programs, nutrient programs, chemical programs…etc…we spend all winter writing up these programs and costing them out in preparation for the upcoming season. Everything is program based and it’s like today’s super is more of a systems analyst than a greenkeeper. Personally, I think a lot of this was developed by people who want to sell us stuff. A plan is nice, but in general, is the modern super overdoing it with all this planning and measuring and quality controlling and…other stuff that takes us away from being in contact with the grass?
Fish Cancun and ice cold Bohemia, what’s better than that?
At WP we built the golf course and now we take care of it. For the most part same people involved in both activities, with a few specialists thrown in. Why doesn’t this happen more?In most cases, owners/ developers want a low risk/ fast production model. When you hire a construction company who claims to have built X number of courses and in X number of months, that appeals to owner/ developers because they see a quicker ROI in that the course may open sooner. Not every owner/ developer has a guy already on staff who is capable of training in all phases of golf...construction, maintenance, etc....like you are. The owner of Wolf Point hit the proverbial home run with you...he got the exact kind of talent he was looking for.
Why do so many people spend such stupid amounts of money to build, or renovate golf courses?In part, because they've been accustomed to hearing about stupid amounts of money being spent. When the club down the street says they just spent 6 mil on their course, the neighbors think that's what it takes. So, ignorance plays a part of that. In some circumstance, location drives up price. Some places (Long Island, Westchester Co. as examples) the cost of goods and services is above, by far, what those same goods and services might be in say, Michigan or Texas. I could point out greed and unnecessary mark ups/ change orders/ greased palms, but why?
I think a lot of good change can be implemented on golf courses for less. Find the right guy/ company who wants to get it done right and get it done efficiently. In fact, find the people who know all facets of the business, and then you will have people who understand that there is a limit to the amount of smart money to be spent on the course. Maximize, my friend...maximize.
In my opinion, conceding there are a few exceptions, it seems like most Golf Architects are closer to being engineers than artists. And because of that we have all these “rules” about what we can and can’t do when we build our courses. Which rules are stupid, and which ones do you like to break?To be honest, i haven't worked elbow to elbow with enough different architects to know how much engineers vs. artists. But, I think I know what you're saying. Drainage(use a chart?), soil testing(especially important in difficult climates), etc. I don't know that I have any certain rules I think need to be broken, but I sure don't mind questioning conventional wisdom. The risk is looking foolish, but questioning conventional wisdom, at times, may be part of the "stupid money" question.
Maintenance question. Today’s greenkeeping seems to have developed into a series of programs. You have PM programs, nutrient programs, chemical programs…etc…we spend all winter writing up these programs and costing them out in preparation for the upcoming season. Everything is program based and it’s like today’s super is more of a systems analyst than a greenkeeper. Personally, I think a lot of this was developed by people who want to sell us stuff. A plan is nice, but in general, is the modern super overdoing it with all this planning and measuring and quality controlling and…other stuff that takes us away from being in contact with the grass?I was not the normal greenkeeper. I was brought up on limited resources, and i think that frugality becomes a part of your way of maintaining the turf/ course. Programs, by their very nature, almost guarantee you'll use a certain amount of "product" in a season. A more frugal way to use products is to address known issues with product as needed, but do your best with other management techniques (irrigation, mowing, cultivation, etc.) to reduce the amount of product needed. As a side note, i always thought my small maintenance facilities were a blessing..I could only buy and store small quantities at a time.
There's kind of an old school/ new school thing with all this. You and I grew up in a different time with a different set of skills and tools. The universities taught things different back then too. The teaching back then was so product-centric, if that makes sense. Now, when I go to conferences, the universities tell you which products to apply to fix specific problems.
I think most supers today have the same mentality as the old school guys, but the expectations are higher and the methodology has changed in response to those expectations. And, in the end it costs more money.
The one thing I wish we would see a university do a study on is irrigation needs and how the plant physiology changes as it adapts to less and less water.....because the plant does adapt, but guys like you and I are not the voices that will give supers the confidence to implement change.
Joe