[Chip Gaskins]

If you measure every penny spent for labor to hit that perfect mix, precise watering times (especially during summer), technology needed to measure everything precisely, etc does Firm and Fast actually cost more than lush, no brainier green?

Hey, I love rock hard, brown, firm fairways, approaches, etc. Ballyneal, Huntingdon Valley, Cal Club, etc are my favorite set ups. However, this was a topic of discussion recently with a few golf mates about which end product actually cost more to maintain.

I used to work on the maintenance crew in college and knew every time we had to hand water things to keep them alive (or on the edge if you are talking firm and fast) the cost went up and risk went through the roof.

I am certainly not advocating over watering, soggy, green, non-sense, but just wondering from the Supers on the forum what their empirical evidence may be on the cost of "no brainier green" versus "firm and fast brown".

Thoughts?

[Bob Jenkins]

Chip,

I am definitely not a super but I am a member at Sagebrush up here in BC which is as "fast and firm" a golf course as you are likely to find in North America, or so I am told.

The actual costs are beyond me but I have had several discussions with Dick Zokol, who is the spirit of Sagebrush, designer, head pro and owner and he has mentioned several times how the minimal watering, such as practised as Sagebrush, costs so much less than watering at other courses in the arid areas up here. That statement makes sense to me.

If you are looking at the cost of monitoring equipment which determines when watering is necessary, I cannot help you but the cost of water alone would seem to be considerably more, especially in the more arid areas around this part of the world.

Bob J

[Adam Lawrence]

Much depends on where you are and how your costs spin out. If you're paying through the nose for water and labour is cheap (in the Middle East, for example), then reducing irrigation will save you tons - Dubai or Abu Dhabi courses typically have water bills north of US$2m a year. But if your water is cheap and labour is expensive then you might not save so much.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Firm and fast would be cheaper. In the UK we can go months without mowing some areas.

[TEPaul]

In some cases and some courses it probably does cost more than lush green. Those cases and courses can generally be identified by their color---I call it the "light green sheen." That takes a lot of man-hours syringing and extra-man hours cost. The crews have to stay around compared to the old days when they could just turn on the irrigation systems and go home.

[JC Jones]

I would love to see some comments from Don Mahaffey, Joe Hancock and Dan Lucas.  The latter two, however, probably don't have time to post as they are working out their scheme to dominate as many charity outings as possible next summer.

[Joe Hancock]

I would love to see some comments from Don Mahaffey, Joe Hancock and Dan Lucas.  The latter two, however, probably don't have time to post as they are working out their scheme to dominate as many charity outings as possible next summer.

Because I carried him in all the events we won, I will require Dan to post a lucid response to this thread.

Joe

[Lou_Duran]

I have heard from more than a couple of superintendents that this may be the case (more expensive).  If the cost of water is negligible, and the irrigation system, drainage, and construction not conducive for dry conditions, it makes sense that the extra labor required would make it more expensive.

Short of tearing up the entries, installing drainage, and creating a green-like subsurface, is there much that can be done to drying these up economically?  The areas closest to the greens would be my highest priorities.

[JC Jones]

I would love to see some comments from Don Mahaffey, Joe Hancock and Dan Lucas.  The latter two, however, probably don't have time to post as they are working out their scheme to dominate as many charity outings as possible next summer.

Because I carried him in all the events we won, I will require Dan to post a lucid response to this thread.

Joe

Mine eyes have seen the glory.  Joe Hancock is alive and posting.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

I think the cost of fast and firm really depends on how you are going to do it. If you are going to use light/frequent watering, which requires a lot of hose work and living on the edge to make it work. Then its probably going to cost you a good deal of money. If you work with nature and use a deep/infrequent watering program, fostering strong grasses then fast and firm can be cheaper.

[TEPaul]

Chris:

Perhaps given some slight variations due to region and/or soil makeup and such I don't see how one could argue with what you just said.

My experience and observations are only empirical but I sure have seen real firm and fast presented at times by the likes of Fishers Island, Newport and Maidstone (three significant courses that have no fairway automatic irrigation systems) on which the grass has turned a light brown and I have seen the same degree of firm and fast (bounce and rollout "through the green") on the likes of Merion East, Oakmont, Aronimink etc on which the grass has that "light green sheen" I mentioned above.

I don't  think there is much question which of the two is more expensive to maintain. In the past I used to refer to the latter as firm and fast's dirty little secret, but no more; I think it is pretty much the reality that those interested in this particular subject need to become aware of and deal with, including its consequences and requirements of perhaps increased cost generally due to increased man-hours (primarily syringing).

[Steve_ Shaffer]

TEPaul,

You  forgot to mention Huntingdon Valley. Perhaps Jim Sullivan or Scott Anderson can chime in on the cost.

[Anthony_Nysse]

  Generallly speaking, in most cases, I think that F&F costs more. The need for a few extra, (2-10 depending on your scale) trained employees to handwater greens, tees, apps, fwys and roughs. When most of the staff goes home on Saturday and Sunday at 10am, these individuals are there til 4 or 5pm (sometimes later) handwater to get the plant through the day.
  Automatic irrigation is nice, no question, BUT it doesnt get everything and in many cases, DOES overwater areas. It would be very easy to "hit the button" on the irrigation system at 3pm and leave for the day, but I do not beleive that you will ever get fast and firm, unless you're on VERY sandy soils.
  As a whole, because of labor, and in some cases, extra fungicides because your keeping a plant on edge, F&F does cost more.  

[JC Jones]

 Generallly speaking, in most cases, I think that F&F costs more. The need for a few extra, (2-10 depending on your scale) trained employees to handwater greens, tees, apps, fwys and roughs. When most of the staff goes home on Saturday and Sunday at 10am, these individuals are there til 4 or 5pm (sometimes later) handwater to get the plant through the day.
  Automatic irrigation is nice, no question, BUT it doesnt get everything and in many cases, DOES overwater areas. It would be very easy to "hit the button" on the irrigation system at 3pm and leave for the day, but I do not beleive that you will ever get fast and firm, unless you're on VERY sandy soils.
  As a whole, because of labor, and in some cases, extra fungicides because your keeping a plant on edge, F&F does cost more.  

How would you describe your playing conditions at Pine Tree?  Are the soils there sandy?

To your point about labor, I've often see Dan Lucas at Kingsley Club hand watering greens himself.  Perhaps that obviates the need for extra staff?  Joe Hancock at the course he owned had roots over 12" deep and I highly doubt he had 10 people on his staff in total, let alone 10 people extra in order to keep the course fast and firm.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P,

Firm and fast does not always have to cost more.

It does cost more if you have a course full of Poa annua and you are trying to live on the edge and have very fast greens.  (And even then, you might save in fungicides what you spend on syringing.)  But it costs less if you are in a place where water is a real cost, or on other grasses where more water means more growth means more maintenance.

I think firm and fast could be very less expensive if we could give up on certain maintenance standards that Americans have grown accustomed to in the last thirty years, but, I don't know if American golfers would tolerate the change.  Our problem is, we can't admit we have a problem.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

 Generallly speaking, in most cases, I think that F&F costs more. The need for a few extra, (2-10 depending on your scale) trained employees to handwater greens, tees, apps, fwys and roughs. When most of the staff goes home on Saturday and Sunday at 10am, these individuals are there til 4 or 5pm (sometimes later) handwater to get the plant through the day.
  Automatic irrigation is nice, no question, BUT it doesnt get everything and in many cases, DOES overwater areas. It would be very easy to "hit the button" on the irrigation system at 3pm and leave for the day, but I do not beleive that you will ever get fast and firm, unless you're on VERY sandy soils.
  As a whole, because of labor, and in some cases, extra fungicides because your keeping a plant on edge, F&F does cost more.  

Tony's post is a perfect example of the expensive way to do fast and firm. Nothing wrong with this method but the places doing it this way probably have very large budgets that come with very large expectations. The places Tom Paul mentioned Oakmont, Merion, etc. are expected to be fast and firm and blemish free. Most of us do not have this kind of freedom or probably expectations. Most of us probably need to accept that if we are going to do fast and firm we are going to have some blemishes. Watering deep and infrequently keeps us from doing much handwatering at all and it drastically reduces our need for pesticides.

I am not trying to argue against the expensive method of fast and firm (_{although I don't agree with it}), just stating that its not going to work for everyone.

[Anthony_Nysse]

  To generalize and agree with TD, you cannot have "American standards" with bentgrass in the transition zone, poa in Philly, bentgrass in TX, etc without the use of handwatering. I believe that you cannot have greens on the edge, running north of 12 and not have a sound handwatering program in place. No offense to Joe, but having your grasses at much high heights GREATLY reduces the stress on a plant. If a green is being mowed at .156 as opposed to .090, the green at 0.90 is going to be on death watch without the proper water management.  Same with fairways, tees and roughs. I know that when Joe was at Grand Island, he was not mowing at those heights.
  JC-In most cases, 1 handwaterer isnt enough to get around a golf course and touch everything up when needed. The soils here at PT are made up of mostly a native loam. Prior to Mr. Wilson doing his work here, PT was an old pasture for dairy cattle. We handwater religiously here to try to get the tifeagle roots to search for water. On most days, you will see 3-5 staffers handwater tees, greens, apps and even fairways spots because the soils are so eradict-sandy spots, native, etc.
  I would assume that Joe was on a "Deep and infrequent" water program because of labor costs, which is also a very good way to acheive the goal, but knowiing the Grand Rapids area, his soils were much more consistant what I what I've worked on at Long Cove or at Pine Tree. The soils were quite uniform at Colonial.

[Sean_A]

My club is probably 2/3rds through a program to eliminate poa from the greens in favour of bents and fescues.  There is absolutely no question the greens have slowed a ton and are still bumpier in summer months.  However, the greens are far firmer throughout the year and smoother in winter by quite a margin.  The obvious goal in a few  years time is to have more soothness in summer and the ability to cut them slightly tighter than now.  At present 5mm is the summer cut and 6-7mm is the winter cut.  The speed, generally kept at 8-9 is obtained by rolling the greens.  There is no question we are running a cheaper maintenance budget now compared with poa greens which required far more feed, water and labour to cut.  A big part of the process has been the membership's willingness to allow the speed standard to drop.  Sure, there have been some complaint's, but that is to be expected.  As an expected consequence of less feed and water, grass surrounding greens is becoming less lush.  Plus the club has been more diligent in cutting down rough areas every year.  This past summer was the first in a long time when the course played close to what it should with light rough areas and firmer greens.  Unfortunately, that same light grwing season we had in the sping also effected the more positive aspect of fairway grass, but this too is a trade off members have to be willing to accept if they want to lower costs and have the best performing greens on year round basis rather than focusing on summer as the high season.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
You  forgot to mention Huntingdon Valley. Perhaps Jim Sullivan or Scott Anderson can chime in on the cost."


Steve:

I did not mention HVGC with Merion East, Oakmont, Aronimink that produce what I called that "Light Green Sheen" because I view HVGC and the way they produce firm and fast including the color as pretty much a separate category. In my opinion, HVGC and Scott Anderson was one of the real originators of F&F on a significant American Inland golf course. He has been doing what he does for just about thirty years now and that is up to about two decades before most any other inland course of significance with an automatic fairway irrigation system began to really try to produce firm and fast conditions "through the green," as HVGC did beginning in the early 1980s.

HVGC's color is not just that "Light Green Sheen," it is more a "light mottled color SHEEN" and it is very very cool to both play and look at!!  

And, as these kinds of clubs go comparatively to cost, HVGC cannot really be considered a big budget club with its course---at least not compared to the likes of Merion East, Oakmont, Aronimink etc.

[Don_Mahaffey]

F & F on poa probably costs more. Its a wimpy grass and you have to baby it, even more so if your trying to present a fast course.

F & F on bermuda DOES NOT have to costs more. But, if you can't have a brown piece of grass then yeah, you'll spend a lot of money.

F & F on bermuda when only playability matters, and I mean good playability with tight, dense turf, does not have to cost more.

[Craig Sweet]

If your course is mostly poa firm and fast is pretty difficult. When it gets hot it dies without water...but then again, some people like playing on dirt!

[JESII]

Don,

Was that last sentence meant to be about Bermuda or Bent?


I don't know much about what the costs have to be, but the desired color would seem to be the key indicator on expense...firm and green would be expensive and...because green is the number 1 priority in that equation...the most difficult to achive on a regular basis so too many days are too soft.

[Chip Gaskins]

F & F on poa probably costs more. Its a wimpy grass and you have to baby it, even more so if your trying to present a fast course.

F & F on bermuda DOES NOT have to costs more. But, if you can't have a brown piece of grass then yeah, you'll spend a lot of money.

F & F on bermuda when only playability matters, and I mean good playability with tight, dense turf, does not have to cost more.

Don

Thanks for the info...

I was about to post and say can you even really have bermuda play firm and fast.  Is that a playing condition only truly available on fescues....however you posted what you did above.  So now my question is, what is brown bermuda?  I thought brown bermuda in the winter was called dormant and brown bermuda in the summer was called dead.  Can you really get bermuda in the summer to play F & F?  Honest question, love to hear some of the courses that fit this description.  I would love to go play them.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I think that it should be noted that some of the courses that TomP mentions have VERY detailed irrigation systems to try to limit the waste of water and give the staff more ability to put water where they need it.
  Many GCA understand that most courses now have "back to back" irrigation heads around the greens, meaning there is a head to water the green and a head to water the approach and surround.
  Now several of the courses that TEP mentions have this in their fairways. They have the ability to water JUST the fairway or JUST the rough. Many of theise courses also have irrigation for the bunker faces.
  At Pine Tree, because we have tifeagle greens, appraches and tees, our irrigation system is quite unique. We have pop up sprinklers (similar to homeowners yards) that water the tifeagle on the approaches. We also have this to water JUST the tee tops. We have misters that water the untire bunker face.
  Now, this gives us more control of where the water is going, but certainly does not eliminate the need to drag a hose.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Many UK courses manage on just 4 staff, very few have more than 7. We are luckier perhaps with our climate but not many courses have any irrigation on fairways and we do fine, sometimes on a downhill fairway the ball will roll 100 yards. I am not convinced by what I am hearing you can get proper F&F conditions in the US, if you are frequent watering and topping up high spots on fairways it seems a real waste of money, no wonder your monthly dues are like our annuals. The strange thing is your courses in South Carolina seem exceptional value and I have seen plently of $40 courses that look great.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()