Golf Industry Show

[Keith Phillips]

As a layman (and ignoring the over-wrought passion in this thread) a sincere question...what does it mean that a green doesn't 'perform'?  If Ben is pursuing a Masters I'm still in kindergarten as far as agronomy is concerned, but I do chair a greens committee at a fine club, with decades-old greens, and I'm curious about the term 'perform'...I see reference to thatch, which is an obvious problem, but I would have thought there would be more economical solutions than ripping up and rebuilding greens.  We rebuilt three 90 year-old Ross greens last autumn to address contemporary green speeds/pin-able areas etc, and obviously the process is costly.  With several other greens we introduced sub-surface channel drainage which was very cost-effective and seems to have had great effect.  With all 36 greens we will be aggressively adding sand via 2x/yr drill and fill and regular top-dressing...what am I missing...why would we, instead of these measures, rip up and rebuild our greens?

[Ben Sims]

Ian,

Not that Don is obligated to say so, but he's right.  I'm spending my own time, money, and benefits to learn this stuff.  It's not a hobby, nor is it basic.  If you--like many of your colleagues at the show--want to underestimate that drive, fine by me.  Yes, much of my experience has been academic and I agree you don't learn it by writing papers and essays and calculating nitrogen rates.   But I know what I heard, and I questioned it because it didn't sound right to me.  If you think I'm so dense as to not know what I heard, and I don't have the qualifications to even ask the questions, then I don't know how to continue this conversation.  We simply aren't working on the level of mutual respect that I thought. 

By the way, I'm trying to be anything but self-righteous.  Nothing is wrong with challenge and response. 

[Ian Larson]

Ben,
I'm not questioning your intelligence at all. I know you're an intelligent guy and on you for your passion and perseverance with what you're doing. All I questioned was that with this thread you are the only one to be at the panel discussion. Other than Bauer hamming it up in the back of the room. Youre a regular on here so it's no secret you're getting started on some sort of path in the industry and I really do respect that. Per the seminar I just want to know agronomic details and what was said by who as to recommending a complete rebuild. And if rebuilding could have been mistaken for renovation which is not one in the same. And it all stems from the fact of my experience with these people that would not just call for a rebuild so quickly and unjustly.

If you are saying that someone on that panel said that if you have issues with your greens you should rebuild them without going into detail of how and why then I guess I'll take your word for it. If that's the case it seems like a very poor and misleading panel discussion. To properly troubleshoot a greens performance agronomically is to use a complete rebuild as the very last option. Exhausting all other options first. I believe those guys know that, and if they didn't convey that message clearly bad on them. Because look at how you took that and came to this discussion. Look at the classic example of Keith Phillips' post. You know enough to question its validity. But I question if you knew enough to understand all of the agronomic details. Probably did I don't know.

Keep doing what you're doing. Always question and always challenge, that's what I live by. I think Don knows that! Just don't go around the operations talking about your GPA


Don,
As always you and I are on the same page but in different books. I just think its fair for us to get the facts straight on what the panel conveyed before we demonized them. And with having a good handle on your core philosophies I think I knew where this thread was going. And the implications that were being made were the opposite of what I experienced with these guys. And that was the only fact that I could bring to the table. Still not clear if rebuild was used instead of renovate and if they used renovate loosely. If any one of the guys called for a uncalled for complete rebuild they should be called out for it as that's a bad thing for the industry. But the details of the discussion are still unclear to me.

I'm glad golf had its bubble burst. It needed to be humbled because it was getting out of control. And I understand where you guys are coming from with your points. I'm just one to not neglect technology if it means improved efficiency and the savings in efficiency outweigh the cost of the technology. After my vacation I'm starting some work with a club that once had a 2 million dollar budget and still looks and plays great with it being cut by over 50%. Excess in golf is over for the most part. I hope to share more with the DG later this year.

[Scott Furlong]

Is this the same Ian Larson that worked at the Country Club of Harrisburg, PA last year?