[Ben Sims]

Aaron,

You wrote

Mike your kind of proving my point....if you didn't attend how can you say "you have seen a lot of BS in it"  My college experience gave me a foundation it's not like both turf and business models are the same as when I graduated (hate to say) 18 years ago.  It prepared me to be ready to adapt, change and be open to new ideas.  My same professors, still visit yearly and they are constantly looking at how we've adapted to new models or practices to incorporate to the current crop of students.

I am saying that Mike is right Aaron.  Maybe your schooling was pure.  But in my experience, exceeding the expectations of those that have hired you from a conditioning standpoint is the mantra at school.  And the best way to do that is to spend money.  Much of what I have learned in school goes to the best way to justify the costs of certain aspects of managing turf.  Unfortunately, sustainability is not part of the mantra. 

I have learned a lot about turf and that is what I was after.  My schooling is giving me the expertise in the plant and soil itself so that I can make informed decisions on where to become more sustainable, save money, and care about the environment  more than the business currently does.  Anyone can come on this site and say that all the bell and whistles we see at the industry show are necessary because customers expect great turf.  But admitting that it costs too much and teaching a different way if what I am after.  Saying that there is no BS is comfortable. 

[Mike_Young]

Hello AAron,
I don't get ticked off at entertainment chat room discussions so fire away...
I have been around a few supts   And my statement was clarified as not being blanket.  But I do think the schools are a problem as well as the associations.  However, rest assured the market will correct much of this. 

You say:
"Last...I'm going on a limb here to say you didn't attend school for turf and with having a BS in it I can tell you that I had plenty to tell me how to handle the business side. "
If it was professors telling you how to handle the business side..they have zero clue and most could not run your golf operation.
I did not attend an accredited turfgrass school but I have seen a lot of BS in it ...
Your numbers look ok except I usually see labor down around 60 to 64%.
You say: "I have to deal with CEO's, Lawyers, Doctors and the like so to say I can just bullshit them is off the mark."
I say most supts can BS all of these types....that's  one reason why we are in the mess we are with golf....and they continue to be BS'ed.
With all due respect almost any supt can BS

Mike your kind of proving my point....if you didn't attend how can you say "you have seen a lot of BS in it"  My college experience gave me a foundation it's not like both turf and business models are the same as when I graduated (hate to say) 18 years ago.  It prepared me to be ready to adapt, change and be open to new ideas.  My same professors, still visit yearly and they are constantly looking at how we've adapted to new models or practices to incorporate to the current crop of students.

My labor is probably slightly higher due to serious increases in health care or maybe they pay me too much. 
Health Care 7% of budget if you pulled it out of what I call Labor.

I'd say the entire world is full of BS types, it certainly isn't limited to turf or golf but when a guy who used to be CFO of Ford and is used to wielding a sledgehammer looks at you and says here's how much money you have get it done.  There isn't much room for BSing. 

I just think overall your painting with a broad brush in general.

One of the reason's I asked earlier about is sustainable natural resoursces or money is what doesn't seem to be talked about much here (now I'm new so it could be in another thread somewhere) is how long it takes to play the game.  Being around it everyday, I think time is as much as factor too golfs problem of how sustainable is the money/business model going forward.  I love the game but just don't understand why people can't play 18 holes in 3 hours.  Why not look at the possibility of some 12 holes courses that are maybe structured with a small range and 4 3-holes loops so someone could hit balls and play 6 holes after work.  That would be a lot cheaper and sustainable.
[/quote]

Aaron,
I think it's great you have a 4 year turf degree.  How do I know?  I know more than a few of the professors and their grantors etc...My father in law was the supt at a top 10 golf course for years and I have listened to him and his buddies laugh about the BS( in a good way)  I think now I'm old enough to realize how much a degree doesnt teach...of course the entire world is now figuring that out...I think my biggest proof of the BS would be to use a good friend as an example.   He works with me some and is a Penn St turf head, has worked as director of golf maintenance at a large national resort and was at the little course in East Ga near the river.  He purchased a course I had designed, built and owned about 5 years ago.  He now works the counter, cooks burgers and mows greens.  He now sees the light and it would be good for a lot of pros and supts to pay admission to hear him talk...cheers...Mike

[Mike_Young]

Aaron,
Read Ayn Rand "The Fountainhead" and substitute golf into it....it is the exact place of where we are today.  The fox is running the henhouse....and I don't mean supts and pros....I mean industry "experts"

[Aaron McMaster]

Aaron,
Read Ayn Rand "The Fountainhead" and substitute golf into it....it is the exact place of where we are today.  The fox is running the henhouse....and I don't mean supts and pros....I mean industry "experts"

Mike I love Ayn Rand and have read FH but Atlas Shrugged is my Favorite....Capitalism the unkown ideal is great too although a little tougher read.

I think it's great you have a 4 year turf degree.  How do I know?  I know more than a few of the professors and their grantors etc...My father in law was the supt at a top 10 golf course for years and I have listened to him and his buddies laugh about the BS( in a good way)  I think now I'm old enough to realize how much a degree doesnt teach...of course the entire world is now figuring that out...I think my biggest proof of the BS would be to use a good friend as an example.   He works with me some and is a Penn St turf head, has worked as director of golf maintenance at a large national resort and was at the little course in East Ga near the river.  He purchased a course I had designed, built and owned about 5 years ago.  He now works the counter, cooks burgers and mows greens.  He now sees the light and it would be good for a lot of pros and supts to pay admission to hear him talk...

Mike I understand your points but it's not one size fits all, too many variables but I bet it'd be great convo for sure.  A little story to add to yours...I had a friend of my brothers who owns a mom and pop not to far from me and we were at an outing at their place and his dad was complaining that he felt all MSU wanted him to do was spray so I finally interupted him to ask who said that to him.  He never actually talked to msu but was filled in on that from a salesmen.  He doesn't employ a sup and in five minutes of schooling his son on why he had horrible dollar spot on his greens (which he was spraying for) we had his issue solved with less chemical, lower costs and better putting quality.  A little information is dangerous and I guess I'm just trying to point out that myself and the other supers I personally exhcange knowlegde with don't think the way you've pointed out and we try to do whats right but it's a big industry.  Now I will say that your father inlaw probably worked in the days when BS was common and mowing on a tractor with gangs  a beer in one hand and cig hanging out of their mouth was normal.  I don't dispute what the so called good old days were like.

Who are these industry "experts"?  All I can tell you is when it comes to sustainability sups are all looking at anyway we can to provide quality playing conditions with less.  That means less money, less chemical, less food, less water, shrink our properties...etc.  Are you saying we got to this point totally on the basis of industry experts?

I will say the next time I do something at my club based on the fox would be the first since it's my hide on the line but I'm sure there are a lot of them out there who follow like sheep.

Ben,

I haven't been in school for almost 20 years so I don't want to comment on exact cirriculum now a days but I can tell you that plant health even back then was number one, in fours years I'd had one class that dealt with chemical usage.  It's changed a lot and it's still changing and it will continue to change but it still makes up your basic foundation and your ability to build on it..is what seperates good sups from the average.  I'd like to sit down with you after you've been a sup for 20 years with your butt in the chair, making all the decisions and answering to the owner, members or management and see how you view things.  If your seeking this as a profession I wish you luck!

Enjoying the dialogue  

[John Kirk]

America has plenty of water. 

This is absolutely not true.  Just take a look at the Colorado river, or what is left of it, after years of people moving to the desert and wanting golf courses, yards, agriculture, houses, etc.  There is a short list of things that have, perhaps irrevocably, ruined significant parts of the US's ecology and people living in the desert is high on that list.  We could do a lot for our environment if people didn't try to make Phoenix look like the Ohio valley.

Hi JC,

I would argue that we are both right.  In general, America has lots of fresh water, when compared to other countries around the world.  However, parts of the country, mostly the Sun Belt of California to Texas, strain to meet current needs.  The Ogallala Aquifer is depleted in its southern range around New Mexico and Oklahoma.  The aquifer under the Coachella Valley (Palm Springs) has dropped several dozen feet since it became a winter golf destination about 50-60 years ago.

I drove interstate 10 between Palm Desert and Phoenix a couple years ago, and was shocked how small the Colorado River is.  I believe that 90% of the water is diverted at that point.

Count me as one who believes that oil shortages will come before water shortages.

Won't golf in resource-depleted regions become politically unpopular?

I read The Fountainhead and liked it a lot.  But I don't remember the book endorsing the act of selling you stuff you don't need.  There is an overwhelming amount of BS these days, and it prevents good decision making.  I hate BS.

[Aaron McMaster]

Aaron,
Read Ayn Rand "The Fountainhead" and substitute golf into it....it is the exact place of where we are today.  The fox is running the henhouse....and I don't mean supts and pros....I mean industry "experts"

Mike,

I just had an opportunity to look up your website and I like your 10 points....I stated earlier that I've thought for awhile now that time was a serious problem for the game and that's why I asked about a 12 hole course that was designed in loops of 3....are you aware of any in play now or that would be in the future?  FYI, the first person that ever brought that up to me was Dr. Trey Rogers III from MSU turf program.

[Kalen Braley]

Only way to settle this...as I see it is:

What are Mikes profit margins, (or losses), as compared to Aarons!   

P.S.  This is really interesting stuff guys, thanks for contributing and its fascinating to see the various insights on how the biz works.

[Mike_Young]

AAron,
As I said before, it was not a blanket statement and you are probably one of the ones I would agree with but I have still seen plenty that I will keep describing as my earlier description. 

John K,
As for the Fountainhead....I was referring to the part where the "experts" were the ones in power and were "experting" as needed to make their ways work.
The golf industry experts are often in a position where the object is to make a profit for their sector and not the golf course that purchases their product.  In other words the 16000 end users are often being fed BS by the industry.  And it's not popular to go against that.  For Example: certain sections would find it ideal if all greens other than USGA specifications died.

Aaron,
I just purchased a course I designed in 1990 and today we were in the process of placing a 10 inch cup on a section of 9 greens to see if some of the older guys etc use it.  I'm also looking at giving foursomes 10 cents per minute of of their next green fee based on the minutes the play in under 4 hours.

Kalen,
Hmmmm

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I hope you're a more reasonable architect than Roark, who said "I don’t work with collectives. I don’t consult. I don’t co-operate. I don’t collaborate."
 

[Carl Nichols]

Whenever we have a discussion about sustainable golf, we always seem to talk about a lower level of course conditions.

The same argument for organic foods, such as fruits and vegetables, that are sold in their natural state.  They may not look as pretty on the outside, yet the quality is, at least perceived to be, better on the inside.

However, the food industry has yet to prove (or doesn't want to prove) that organic is cheaper but the masses continue to pay premium prices.

Organic foods aren't subsidized by your tax dollars.  Take away the subsidies for corn, soy, etc. and you'd see the real price of the "food" that you eat.

Moreover, 70 years ago we spent 17% of our budgets on food and 8% on healthcare, today those numbers are reversed.  Cheap food has ramifications beyond the cash register that make it, actually, not very cheap. 

If your only consideration on food is the price you pay at the store, organic will never win.  Take into account the tax subsidies for the food you buy at the store, the cost on your health and the cost on the environment with the petroleum needed to produce the food and organic will come out drastically ahead.

JC:
Can you point me to a subsidy that's available only to the non-organic growers of a crop, i.e., a subsidy that an organic grower of the exact same crop wouldn't get? 

[Aaron McMaster]

AAron,
As I said before, it was not a blanket statement and you are probably one of the ones I would agree with but I have still seen plenty that I will keep describing as my earlier description. 

John K,
As for the Fountainhead....I was referring to the part where the "experts" were the ones in power and were "experting" as needed to make their ways work.
The golf industry experts are often in a position where the object is to make a profit for their sector and not the golf course that purchases their product.  In other words the 16000 end users are often being fed BS by the industry.  And it's not popular to go against that.  For Example: certain sections would find it ideal if all greens other than USGA specifications died.

Aaron,
I just purchased a course I designed in 1990 and today we were in the process of placing a 10 inch cup on a section of 9 greens to see if some of the older guys etc use it.  I'm also looking at giving foursomes 10 cents per minute of of their next green fee based on the minutes the play in under 4 hours.

Kalen,
Hmmmm

Mike...good stuff!  I'd be interested in hearing how that turns out.

I understand too about the usga issue.  I think a problem though is that if you take a young super and ask him to go against something like a usga spec green it's tough for them and it's not since that is the only method they were taught in turf school....just that he's young and maybe not willing to stand up to an owner or club that thinks... it's the usga they must be right.  There are plenty of ways to build greens and the more experienced a super usually they will be willing to take that risk.

You also see a lot of courses built without a super or they are brought in once grass is planted and I'd say the same still applies that who would you look to and most think the usga is the end all be all.  Experience means a lot and having a solid Architect and experienced super while building new greens or a new golf course/renovation can not only make great product but save you money in the process.  Great builder as well.

Mike if your ever in Detroit...feel free to look me up and stop in.  I know I would always enjoy conversation with someone who likes Ayn Rand 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Whenever we have a discussion about sustainable golf, we always seem to talk about a lower level of course conditions. Does the use of sustainability always mean our courses will have a reduced level of conditioning?

Are there examples of courses adopting sustainability and suffering from reduced conditions?
Are there any examples of the opposite, courses adopting sustainable principles and increasing the level of conditioning?

Don,

I would offer Newport and Seminole as clubs that accept reduced levels of conditioning by relying on Mother Nature to a greater extent.

But, that's a culture, a membership headset that's been cultivated for over a century.

In Florida, overseeding is a roll of the dice where Mother Nature can make you look like a genius or a fool.
Certain clubs are willing to take the risk of not overseeding, and sometimes that risk results in reduced playing conditions.
But, it's an acceptable risk because the emphasis is on sustainable playing conditions that meet the club's goal/s

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I hope you're a more reasonable architect than Roark, who said "I don’t work with collectives. I don’t consult. I don’t co-operate. I don’t collaborate."
 

Jim,
I try to follow him to the letter...that's why I always stir shit on here

[John Kirk]

Continuing the McMaster grilling:

Hi Aaron.  On another thread, you wrote the following about Poa annua:

"Poa is tough to keep out of golf courses when it's in the right environment and unfortunately it's a very adaptable weed.  There are currently a couple of promising chemicals close to approval that can do a great job of killing it but they are still about a year or two away.  Here is a little Poa info for you that will help you see why it's so hard to keep off golf courses.

Some Interesting Facts about Poa annua

Depending on the climatic region Poa annua is a plant that you either try to manage as a desirable turf, or it is a weed to be removed. Its evasive characteristics are due in a large part from the evolution of different survival strategies (Cline et al., 1993). One strategy is its broad genetic base resulting in a wide range of genotypes within a small area like a golf green. Poa annua has also maintained its ability to flower and produce seed under low mowing heights."

(I gussied it up a bit.)

Two thoughts:

1.  If Poa annua is the dominant grass species, should a superintendent embrace its introduction, no matter what?  A Poa annua herbicide has been in the works for years, but why?  It is my understanding that Poa mutates over a few decades into a finer, perennial grass with fewer flowers, hence the fine greens at courses like Oakmont in Pennsylvania.

www2.gcsaa.org/GCM/2006/dec/pdfs/073-088_Dec06.pdf

2.  I understand that Poa annua requires a lot of water in summertime, but in those places it thrives, I would still suggest it makes sense to encourage the transition.  (No course in Oregon has ever stayed Poa-free.)  In the very long run, Poa annua becomes a super fine putting surface.

Thanks.  I hope this is deemed relevant to the discussion.  I enjoy learning from the turfheads.

[Ben Sims]

Two thoughts:

1.  If Poa annua is the dominant grass species, should a superintendent embrace its introduction, no matter what?  

2.  I understand that Poa annua requires a lot of water in summertime, but in those places it thrives, I would still suggest it makes sense to encourage the transition.  

Oh no he didn't!

John,

The attempt to eradicate poa from a bentgrass stand is--in my opinion--one of the most ridiculous and wasteful historical practices in turf management.  It's a no-no to talk about poa as a surface to be managed unless you're a sup at a top 100 course in Penn, Jersey or NY.  

Imagine a world where we cultivate and promote the best grass for the climate.  I understand in many cases that just because one grass grows better doesn't mean it's better for golf.   In rare cases (popular ones here on GCA like Bandon and Ballyneal) there is a playability aspect to the discussion.  But why try and keep poa out of bent?  I'll never understand it.

[John Kirk]

Like Mr. Doak says, the original Bandon Dunes course is now about 20-30% Poa, with Pacific Dunes at perhaps 10-20%.  Pumpkin Ridge, which is 20 years old, is perhaps 50-70% Poa.

It appears to me that you've got a chance of keeping a significant percentage of Poa out as long as it is either very dry, or very hot in the summertime.

[Aaron McMaster]

Continuing the McMaster grilling:

Hi Aaron.  On another thread, you wrote the following about Poa annua:

"Poa is tough to keep out of golf courses when it's in the right environment and unfortunately it's a very adaptable weed.  There are currently a couple of promising chemicals close to approval that can do a great job of killing it but they are still about a year or two away.  Here is a little Poa info for you that will help you see why it's so hard to keep off golf courses.

Some Interesting Facts about Poa annua

Depending on the climatic region Poa annua is a plant that you either try to manage as a desirable turf, or it is a weed to be removed. Its evasive characteristics are due in a large part from the evolution of different survival strategies (Cline et al., 1993). One strategy is its broad genetic base resulting in a wide range of genotypes within a small area like a golf green. Poa annua has also maintained its ability to flower and produce seed under low mowing heights."

(I gussied it up a bit.)

Two thoughts:

1.  If Poa annua is the dominant grass species, should a superintendent embrace its introduction, no matter what?  A Poa annua herbicide has been in the works for years, but why?  It is my understanding that Poa mutates over a few decades into a finer, perennial grass with fewer flowers, hence the fine greens at courses like Oakmont in Pennsylvania.

www2.gcsaa.org/GCM/2006/dec/pdfs/073-088_Dec06.pdf

2.  I understand that Poa annua requires a lot of water in summertime, but in those places it thrives, I would still suggest it makes sense to encourage the transition.  (No course in Oregon has ever stayed Poa-free.)  In the very long run, Poa annua becomes a super fine putting surface.

Thanks.  I hope this is deemed relevant to the discussion.  I enjoy learning from the turfheads.

John...that thread was a reponse to whether or not poa would take over the remaining courses at Bandon like it's doing on the original course.  I don't remember who commented but they said they were disappointed that they saw it at Sand Hills I believe.  I wasn't advocating any approach just answering his question.

I won't go into everything there is or can be done with poa so I'll keep it simple to your questions

1.  If you have poa then you of course you should grow it.  I talk to so many courses that want to convert to bent but they wish to do it with interseeding.  Just doesn't work and it's a waste of time and money.  There already is a great chemical that literally smokes poa out of bent affectionally known as Japanese buttermild but they decided to give up on the registration.  There are at least two more on the way if you want to try to keep pure bent.  Nobody knows exactly why certain poa's seed and others don't but even at a place like oakmont some poa will seed..also I'm new here so I'd rather not comment on certain courses by name but I'll just say if you push any turf to far in the quest for speed you can kill it.  Yes the poa you see on putting greens is a perennial type and the not the winter annual.  It's very fine bladed and ultra dense.  Another reason it's been difficult to keep poa out of bent is for years Penncross was the gold standard for seeding greens and cutting that turf under 5/32 of an inch it will thin, what was never really a dense turf anyway and allow areas for poa to encroach.  The newer bents with ultra high shoot densities that tolerate very low mowing heights battle poa very well without chemical control.

2.  Oregon certainly has some of the best poa greens around it's a great environment for it and if I were a super there I'd encourage it as well.  The fallacy is that it takes a lot of water, in reality it doesn't take a lot of it to have good poa.  What it does take is constant light water or syringing and that is a lot of afternoon labor.

There really is a ton more to this debate and a lot of these things are driven by membership or owners and what their expectations are.  A huge factor for a lot of clubs in our area is winter kill.  I've have seen about 5 terrible winters in the last 10 where clubs have temps or marginal putting surfaces at best all spring and into early June from winter injury to poa that bent has zero problems with.

Good questions though.  It's late so not sure I covered everything for ya so ask away if I didn't.

[Aaron McMaster]

Two thoughts:

1.  If Poa annua is the dominant grass species, should a superintendent embrace its introduction, no matter what?  

2.  I understand that Poa annua requires a lot of water in summertime, but in those places it thrives, I would still suggest it makes sense to encourage the transition.  

Oh no he didn't!

John,

It's a no-no to talk about poa as a surface to be managed unless you're a sup at a top 100 course in Penn, Jersey or NY.  
This would rank as one of the more outlandish statements I've ever read....only sups in Penn, Jersey and NY like poa come on... I'll just leave it alone.

Imagine a world where we cultivate and promote the best grass for the climate.  I understand in many cases that just because one grass grows better doesn't mean it's better for golf.   In rare cases (popular ones here on GCA like Bandon and Ballyneal) there is a playability aspect to the discussion.  But why try and keep poa out of bent?  I'll never understand it.

[John Kirk]

In general, I was trying to fold the Poa annua discussion into the sustainability discussion, since I believe Poa is the one grass which eventually makes its way into most American golf courses.

Another random thought.  Bentgrass that creeps into the rough can become a very poor grass for playing golf.  Wet 2-inch bentgrass is almost unplayable, so it's the kind of grass that is problematic in a "poly culture", as described in Don Mahaffey's question #1.  I think this usually happens when courses try to have bentgrass fairways and greens, with rye or bluegrass roughs.

[Aaron McMaster]

In general, I was trying to fold the Poa annua discussion into the sustainability discussion, since I believe Poa is the one grass which eventually makes its way into most American golf courses.

Another random thought.  Bentgrass that creeps into the rough can become a very poor grass for playing golf.  Wet 2-inch bentgrass is almost unplayable, so it's the kind of grass that is problematic in a "poly culture", as described in Don Mahaffey's question #1.  I think this usually happens when courses try to have bentgrass fairways and greens, with rye or bluegrass roughs.

Good point John....definition of a weed is a plant out of place.  Bent in rye/blue roughs is a horrible playing surface.  Poa is a pain when it's in the rough as well...the seeds will get stalky and golfers complain of the difficulty of playing out of that as well but unless your at places that overseed a new course every year, like palm springs or scottsdale your going to have contamination and most golfers should just learn to play from it.  Your gonna have some mixed grasses, maybe some thin areas etc.  more golfers need to just learn to hit from it.  I also put lots of trees in the weed category   

[JC Jones]

Whenever we have a discussion about sustainable golf, we always seem to talk about a lower level of course conditions.

The same argument for organic foods, such as fruits and vegetables, that are sold in their natural state.  They may not look as pretty on the outside, yet the quality is, at least perceived to be, better on the inside.

However, the food industry has yet to prove (or doesn't want to prove) that organic is cheaper but the masses continue to pay premium prices.

Organic foods aren't subsidized by your tax dollars.  Take away the subsidies for corn, soy, etc. and you'd see the real price of the "food" that you eat.

Moreover, 70 years ago we spent 17% of our budgets on food and 8% on healthcare, today those numbers are reversed.  Cheap food has ramifications beyond the cash register that make it, actually, not very cheap. 

If your only consideration on food is the price you pay at the store, organic will never win.  Take into account the tax subsidies for the food you buy at the store, the cost on your health and the cost on the environment with the petroleum needed to produce the food and organic will come out drastically ahead.

JC:
Can you point me to a subsidy that's available only to the non-organic growers of a crop, i.e., a subsidy that an organic grower of the exact same crop wouldn't get? 

Carl,

That isn't what I said.  Nonetheless, I'd be happy to discuss farm subsidies, the reason why corn is in just about all processed food we eat, the harmful effects on the environment via PM and why the subsidy program doesn't subsidize poly-culture organic farming.  But, I had my foray into these great threads that Don is starting and I don't want to distract from the golf related discussion.  So if you'd like to discuss further, please send me a PM.

[Bill Brightly]

In general, I was trying to fold the Poa annua discussion into the sustainability discussion, since I believe Poa is the one grass which eventually makes its way into most American golf courses.

Another random thought.  Bentgrass that creeps into the rough can become a very poor grass for playing golf.  Wet 2-inch bentgrass is almost unplayable, so it's the kind of grass that is problematic in a "poly culture", as described in Don Mahaffey's question #1.  I think this usually happens when courses try to have bentgrass fairways and greens, with rye or bluegrass roughs.

John,

I agree that high bentgrass is unplayable, I often see it spreading in sections near tees where it is not a problem, but it looks nasty if you envision a golf ball in there! I wonder why it does not escape into roughs more often. Is it because the roughs are thicker and the rye and bluegrasses are heavier? Or do supers have to manage the roughs to keep out bent?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()