Have turf fans become obsolete?

[JC Jones]

What John represents is an unwillingness to acquiesce whereas I read Mr Solow's latest post as the opposite.  I think there is something noble in asking what the value is in dealing with what is, when one could be attempting to achieve what could be.  Call it idealism or naivete (for the young) but it is legitimate in its roots.  Some are willing to just deal with what is while only lamenting its cause or creation while others wonder whether we can change what is to what it could be.

There will always be a tension between the pragmatist and the idealist, as neither can truly understand the other.

[John Kavanaugh]

To paraphrase Albert Einstein:  I know not with what equipment supers will require to maintain grass for my children but my children's children can rely on sheep.

[Peter Pallotta]

SL, JC - very good posts. I was just watching Ken Burns' Jazz series, the section where Benny Goodman has presented his integrated quartet to the public for the first time. The music they made was marvelous - they were like brothers. But a very old Lionel Hampton remembers coming off that stage and someone coming up to Goodman and saying "Benny, why do you have those ni--ers in your band?", and Benny replying "If you ever say that to me again I'm gonna crack this clarinet over your head".  And that lead to Wynton Marsalis noting (I can't do his words justice) that jazz was the metaphor for dialouge - for a national conversation: "We have a problem here, that's right - but we're going to deal with it. And to deal with it, we have to come together, we have to heal it through a conversation, through soul. But to heal it, we have to face it, we can't run away -- 'cause the more you run away the more you run straight back into the problem". I don't know the answers of course, but I do know that the 'soul work' means talking to one another without artifice and without contempt, taking the various points of view (and the people who hold them) seriously, with presumption or flippancy. Fans, turf, water, chemicals -- these are legitimate questions.

Peter

[Anthony_Nysse]

Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire:  My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.

Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!

I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.

John,
  Who sets those standards? Most private courses have a book of standards that are guidelines in which the membership would like to see the course maintain. The standards of 1973 would not even be close to what is considered acceptable by most now. Fairways were mowed with gang units, with 5-7 blade reels. Now, fairways are mowed with triplexes and 11-14 blade reels. Bunkers are hand raked and need to be prepared with perfection. Approaches and tees are walk mowed when many courses had not even started mowing tees with a different machine than the fairway. Greens are spray hawked on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Spraying greens were an after thought in 1973. Primo (growth regulator) was introduced 20 years ago. Superintendents didn't even know what growth regulation was in 1973.  The fight for purity in turfgrass was not even at thought, as just having grass was good enough.
  And that's the biggest issue with this entire topic. Not only is "just having grass" not good enough, we have to have quality, tight cut, fast, firm grass. Your comment of "sometimes, greens die," would NEVER be acceptable to any Board Member or Greens committee member. In many cases, heads are rolled for this...the Superintendents head, which I am sure that you're fine with. Good luck to the Supt circa 2013 that tells the membership that pays them, "Hey, sometimes greens die." He will be given a brown box to place his office things into and removed from the property.
  Grass wins over dirt....everytime.

[Ben Lovett]

Its interesting that turf fans have not really caught on in the rest of the world. Is it due to more realistic (lower) expectations of green speed!

[Anthony_Nysse]

Its interesting that turf fans have not really caught on in the rest of the world. Is it due to more realistic (lower) expectations of green speed!

I think expectations, in general. I've seen enough European Tour events on the Golf Channel and certainly think that some things I see wouldn't be acceptable here in the States. We also have access to many more chemicals, fertilizers and other in other in puts, so the expectations can be higher.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire:  My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.

Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!

I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.

John,
  Who sets those standards? Most private courses have a book of standards that are guidelines in which the membership would like to see the course maintain. The standards of 1973 would not even be close to what is considered acceptable by most now. Fairways were mowed with gang units, with 5-7 blade reels. Now, fairways are mowed with triplexes and 11-14 blade reels. Bunkers are hand raked and need to be prepared with perfection. Approaches and tees are walk mowed when many courses had not even started mowing tees with a different machine than the fairway. Greens are spray hawked on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Spraying greens were an after thought in 1973. Primo (growth regulator) was introduced 20 years ago. Superintendents didn't even know what growth regulation was in 1973.  The fight for purity in turfgrass was not even at thought, as just having grass was good enough.
  And that's the biggest issue with this entire topic. Not only is "just having grass" not good enough, we have to have quality, tight cut, fast, firm grass. Your comment of "sometimes, greens die," would NEVER be acceptable to any Board Member or Greens committee member. In many cases, heads are rolled for this...the Superintendents head, which I am sure that you're fine with. Good luck to the Supt circa 2013 that tells the membership that pays them, "Hey, sometimes greens die." He will be given a brown box to place his office things into and removed from the property.
  Grass wins over dirt....everytime.

Anthony,
My first summer job on a golf course was in 1975, I was 15. We spent the summer regrassing 27 holes at Bermuda Dunes Country Club, one of the original Bob Hope Desert Classic courses. They were not regrassing because they had dirt, they were looking for higher quality turf. The Superintended was Harvey Hardin. I believe he has a number of family members who are still in golf course management in the Coachella Valley area. I think your description of how he approached turf management is a little weak.

As for you description of modern day maintenance, lets be clear that you are talking about the high end privates. Mowing fwys with triplexes and walk mowing tees and approaches is for those with money to spend. Lets be careful about assigning those requirements to all golf courses. Requirements for your course and your members, yes, to 90% of the golfers and golf courses out there, start trying to walk mow tees and triplex fairways and that will get you fired quicker then a bare spot.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire:  My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.

Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!

I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.

John,
  Who sets those standards? Most private courses have a book of standards that are guidelines in which the membership would like to see the course maintain. The standards of 1973 would not even be close to what is considered acceptable by most now. Fairways were mowed with gang units, with 5-7 blade reels. Now, fairways are mowed with triplexes and 11-14 blade reels. Bunkers are hand raked and need to be prepared with perfection. Approaches and tees are walk mowed when many courses had not even started mowing tees with a different machine than the fairway. Greens are spray hawked on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Spraying greens were an after thought in 1973. Primo (growth regulator) was introduced 20 years ago. Superintendents didn't even know what growth regulation was in 1973.  The fight for purity in turfgrass was not even at thought, as just having grass was good enough.
  And that's the biggest issue with this entire topic. Not only is "just having grass" not good enough, we have to have quality, tight cut, fast, firm grass. Your comment of "sometimes, greens die," would NEVER be acceptable to any Board Member or Greens committee member. In many cases, heads are rolled for this...the Superintendents head, which I am sure that you're fine with. Good luck to the Supt circa 2013 that tells the membership that pays them, "Hey, sometimes greens die." He will be given a brown box to place his office things into and removed from the property.
  Grass wins over dirt....everytime.

Anthony,
My first summer job on a golf course was in 1975, I was 15. We spent the summer regrassing 27 holes at Bermuda Dunes Country Club, one of the original Bob Hope Desert Classic courses. They were not regrassing because they had dirt, they were looking for higher quality turf. The Superintended was Harvey Hardin. I believe he has a number of family members who are still in golf course management in the Coachella Valley area. I think your description of how he approached turf management is a little weak.

As for you description of modern day maintenance, lets be clear that you are talking about the high end privates. Mowing fwys with triplexes and walk mowing tees and approaches is for those with money to spend. Lets be careful about assigning those requirements to all golf courses. Requirements for your course and your members, yes, to 90% of the golfers and golf courses out there, start trying to walk mow tees and triplex fairways and that will get you fired quicker then a bare spot.

 Don,
  My dad has been a Superintendent for 40 years. My description of the 70's isn't that far off. In fact, conditions in the 1980's would be acceptable to most now. I do not remember calling out Mr. Hardin in any form, unless you're making a broad statement or assumption, which we cant do on this tread.  
  I am also being crystal clear Don, when comparing modern day, high end maintenance to John's bitching about fans. John is a member at Victoria National. L-93 bentgrass from tee to green, bluegrass roughs in southern Indiana. They walk mow tees, apps and greens. Triplex fairways. Handrake bunkers and have fans. He's complaining about fans at his high end course. So, can I not also point out other things high end courses do? These are apples to apples, Don. John isn't talking about the muni down the street when he's complaining about fans, nor am I talking walk mowing tees at the $30 public course.  
    

[Don_Mahaffey]

Anthony,
I know you are a legacy superintendent and I appreciate that. But I do not agree with your comment that supers in the 70s didn't think or care about purity. They were trying. My grandfather was a super and he was always trying different mixtures to try and keep the poa out of his over seeded greens. I'm in no way saying we don't expect better conditions today, but lets not say the earlier generations weren't all about the same things we are today, just with different tools and expectations.

You took me to task on a gang mower post not long ago. Said things like they would never be accepted by members. I never ever expected you, or the crowd you run with to use gang mowers. But for struggling clubs just trying to keep the doors open, it makes sense for them to follow my lead, not yours.  It really is my beef with the high end supers. I have zero issue with their work, nor their methods. I don't care if you use fans or cut your greens with scissors. But I do care when you come out and act like anyone doing it any other way isn't doing it right.

Raising the height of cut and getting rid of the trees, or changing from bent to Bermuda, makes a hell of a lot more long term sense then fans, sub air, or new greens at MOST courses. Maybe not at JK's or Merion, or Oakmont, but at MOST courses, a good dose of common sense management would be a good thing.

I'm with Mike Young in that there really are two types of golf. The high end privates are in a completely different world then the run of the mill golf course that is the foundation of the game. Problem with our industry is the high end's drive the bus and all those trying to make money hold them up as the example. If you owned a little nine hole and had to feed your family off the revenue, would you spray Floratine or triplex fwys?. I don't think you would, at least not for long. And you know what, I'd bet you'd find a low cost, practical way of presenting a well cared for course that played great.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Anthony,
I know you are a legacy superintendent and I appreciate that. But I do not agree with your comment that supers in the 70s didn't think or care about purity. They were trying. My grandfather was a super and he was always trying different mixtures to try and keep the poa out of his over seeded greens. I'm in no way saying we don't expect better conditions today, but lets not say the earlier generations weren't all about the same things we are today, just with different tools and expectations.

You took me to task on a gang mower post not long ago. Said things like they would never be accepted by members. I never ever expected you, or the crowd you run with to use gang mowers. But for struggling clubs just trying to keep the doors open, it makes sense for them to follow my lead, not yours.  It really is my beef with the high end supers. I have zero issue with their work, nor their methods. I don't care if you use fans or cut your greens with scissors. But I do care when you come out and act like anyone doing it any other way isn't doing it right.

Raising the height of cut and getting rid of the trees, or changing from bent to Bermuda, makes a hell of a lot more long term sense then fans, sub air, or new greens at MOST courses. Maybe not at JK's or Merion, or Oakmont, but at MOST courses, a good dose of common sense management would be a good thing.

I'm with Mike Young in that there really are two types of golf. The high end privates are in a completely different world then the run of the mill golf course that is the foundation of the game. Problem with our industry is the high end's drive the bus and all those trying to make money hold them up as the example. If you owned a little nine hole and had to feed your family off the revenue, would you spray Floratine or triplex fwys?. I don't think you would, at least not for long. And you know what, I'd bet you'd find a low cost, practical way of presenting a well cared for course that played great.

Stigma #1. Floratine is affordable. Every company wants to be Floratine, that's whey they all say, "it's just like Floratine." There is a program that can fit any budget. That's for another day.
  Gang mowers have their place. I will confirm. At a private, dues paying member club? Probably not. Several courses use them for roughs here in the summer months because they are like tanks and you can cut a lot of grass and are not too worried about quality of cut.
  Mike DeVries' Diamond Springs mows with gang units-right up to the edge of the green and over tee tops. But they are catering to a $25 round. This is where the issue lies in this entire thread-
  If you were paying $25 to play, youd expect the standards to be different that that of a private club, high end or not. But thats what members pay for a high end clubs-better this, better, that, no excuse for this or that. Higher budgets equal less excuses. Where John is a member, the remaining membership and/or ownership wouldn't tolerate turf lose, unless under EXTREME conditions. This is why there is fans. And Subair. And a big budget. And many workers. The membership/ownership at these types of clubs provide the tools to succeed and expect Superintendents to do so.
  John continues to mention the "course down the street with the small budget doesn't have fans." They probably aren't mowing at .090", rolling 2X and expected to stimp at 12. They probably also do not pride themselves on conditions and expect to present flawless turf surfaces. A little rough around the edges is okay. They don't have the money nor the players that expect those things.  
  Don, there are many different "types" of courses in America and you know them all. But with these different types come different expectations and requests by ownerships/members. Do you think courses like Victoria National, Olde Stone, Kinloch and numerous other courses would be able to exist on small budgets? No sir. These are all course that possess cool season grass, wall to wall where bermudagrass can be grown. There really is not a perfect grass for these areas of the country. There are alternatives, but these membership want certain things and have certain tolerance levels. That costs money. They pick the time of year they want to be the best. Maybe Vic isn't the best in the 95' heat of the summer because of the fans? Well, there are probably flawless in spring and fall. Bermudagrass wouldn't be. Superintendents can only do so much. When more is asked, it can cost money, but you know that. John is at a course with all cool season turf, when Quail Crossing, slightly north has BERMUDAGRASS fairways.  Desires/wants cost money and time.
  When John would like to put his big boy pants on and talk apples to apples, this entire thread will become an educational device. Right now, it's just a notorious, ignorant bully stirring the pot like his always does.

[Mike Sweeney]

Problem with our industry is the high end's drive the bus and all those trying to make money hold them up as the example. If you owned a little nine hole and had to feed your family off the revenue, would you spray Floratine or triplex fwys?. I don't think you would, at least not for long. And you know what, I'd bet you'd find a low cost, practical way of presenting a well cared for course that played great.

Don,

As an outsider looking in, I would extend Mike Young and your "problem with our industry" and separate the high end privates into two groups:

1. Those with waiting list (my guess is 20%)

2. Those looking for members (my guess is 80%)

The big problem is that the 80% believe they are competing with the 20%, so they keep the big budgets and country club amenities hoping that the demand picks up again. Problem is, I don't see demand picking up for high end privates, imo. Anthony keeps referring to members of private clubs won't go for lower conditioning, but if you are in the 80%, at some point economics wins and standards will shift.

I would also add in a third segment of resort/travel golf where people expect better conditioning and since it is an occasional expense, people will pay it.

Anthony,

I find the exchange between Mike and Don (old guys   ) and you (young guy) interesting. It is very similar to the view of young entrepreneurs in the venture capital world. Mike and Don are fighting for profitability and you are fighting for a bigger budget (bigger market share), imo. Clearly the upside is bigger with you but much riskier and expensive if it fails. If I am writing the checks, I would pick Mike and Don as it is safer and less profitable bet/investment. That wasn't always the case, so your thoughts are not wrong, just riskier.

If I saw demand for golf growing, specifically new players, I would probably pick you.

[Sean McCue]

Stigma #1. Floratine is affordable. Every company wants to be Floratine, that's whey they all say, "it's just like Floratine." There is a program that can fit any budget. That's for another day.
  Gang mowers have their place. I will confirm. At a private, dues paying member club? Probably not. Several courses use them for roughs here in the summer months because they are like tanks and you can cut a lot of grass and are not too worried about quality of cut.
  Mike DeVries' Diamond Springs mows with gang units-right up to the edge of the green and over tee tops. But they are catering to a $25 round. This is where the issue lies in this entire thread-
  If you were paying $25 to play, youd expect the standards to be different that that of a private club, high end or not. But thats what members pay for a high end clubs-better this, better, that, no excuse for this or that. Higher budgets equal less excuses. Where John is a member, the remaining membership and/or ownership wouldn't tolerate turf lose, unless under EXTREME conditions. This is why there is fans. And Subair. And a big budget. And many workers. The membership/ownership at these types of clubs provide the tools to succeed and expect Superintendents to do so.
  John continues to mention the "course down the street with the small budget doesn't have fans." They probably aren't mowing at .090", rolling 2X and expected to stimp at 12. They probably also do not pride themselves on conditions and expect to present flawless turf surfaces. A little rough around the edges is okay. They don't have the money nor the players that expect those things.  
  Don, there are many different "types" of courses in America and you know them all. But with these different types come different expectations and requests by ownerships/members. Do you think courses like Victoria National, Olde Stone, Kinloch and numerous other courses would be able to exist on small budgets? No sir. These are all course that possess cool season grass, wall to wall where bermudagrass can be grown. There really is not a perfect grass for these areas of the country. There are alternatives, but these membership want certain things and have certain tolerance levels. That costs money. They pick the time of year they want to be the best. Maybe Vic isn't the best in the 95' heat of the summer because of the fans? Well, there are probably flawless in spring and fall. Bermudagrass wouldn't be. Superintendents can only do so much. When more is asked, it can cost money, but you know that. John is at a course with all cool season turf, when Quail Crossing, slightly north has BERMUDAGRASS fairways.  Desires/wants cost money and time.
  When John would like to put his big boy pants on and talk apples to apples, this entire thread will become an educational device. Right now, it's just a notorious, ignorant bully stirring the pot like his always does.

[/quote]

Anthony,

Couldn't have said it any better.

At the end of the day we are providing the conditioning that is tied to a set of maintenance standards set by the memberships desire for near perfection at all times. Often times this forces us to push the limits and all the tricks of the trade are sometimes needed to accomplish this goal. When you sign up as a Superintendent at one of these facilities you know what your getting into and what will be expected.

[Steven Blake]

Whether or not a golf course has a 200 K maintenance budget or a 2 million dollar maintenance budget all golf course superintendents deal with the same issues and problems. The higher budget courses have more tools at there disposal and many members feel there ought not be excuses for imperfections.  When dealing with a living breathing thing within a sometimes hostel ever changing environment the more tools one can employ to meet members demands, the better. A superintendent is the caretaker of the members/customers course we do not govern by authoritarian rule as John sees to imply.  If members what perfection then we need to try to provide that even though its not possible  ...


I still remember John blaming supers for fans not quite sure why? But anyway ....  


Steve Blake

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Sweeney,

There's no question that Green Budgets have expanded over the years, but, so has everything else at private clubs.
Labor, gas, power, chemicals, benefits, etc., etc.. have all continued to get more expensive.

The Green budget at most clubs is probably the largest budget and because of that, the most heavily scrutinized.

Having sat on Green Committees and Boards for close to 50 years, I can state, without fear of contradiction that every green budget we reviewed, was reviewed with an eye toward either cutting costs or maintaining costs, where possible.

From a line item perspective, labor and it's related costs, increased every year.
You had to give your employees, at the very least, "cost of living" wage increases.
Benefits, health, welfare and pension, increased commensurately.

Because the Green budget was the largest, it always received the most scrutiny.

Yet, the ground, house, administrative, pool, tennis, kitchen, dinning and other budgets weren't the same "target" when it came to controlling costs because they were smaller budgets.

The notion that private clubs spend with abandon to "keep up with the Jones's" is sheer nonsense.

Yes, there is  a "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality, systemic within all of golf.
Every week a member would return from playing some course and insist that we import what he discovered at that course, on our course.
Some were legitimate issues, others were folly.

Most members are provincial in terms of their perceptions.

The culprit in this area is not neighboring clubs, it's TV and the PGA Tour courses.

Most members don't understand that those courses they see hosting a PGA Tour event on TV, had an infusion of money and prepped for a year for "show time"

Most members watching the PGA Tour on TV want to import what they see, whether it's varied mowing patterns in the fairways, approaches, tees, greens, etc., etc..

While I recognize the difference in private versus non-private clubs, isn't the ultimate user subject to the same syndromes ?
Don't the users of non-private clubs watch the PGA Tour on TV and thirst for the conditions they observe ?

Or is someone going to tell me that non-private golfers don't watch TV and don't want to see their course emulate the courses of the PGA Tour ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

I know of your long standing gripe regarding fans.

I remember your criticism of Pine Valley for employing fans.

But, let me ask you a question.

If you needed brain surgery, and a new stent was invented that would improve the results of the surgery in terms of improved morbidity and improved mortality, would you refuse to have your surgeon implant the device ?

Suppose the device required an external port, visible to all, but, the introduction of that advanced stent, reduced complications and returned the mortality levels to that of the general population, would you decline it's use ?

I'm not a big fan of fans (pun intended), but, there are situations where greens sit in an area where air circulation and/or sunlight are scarce.  We know that the golfer of today, "demands" firmer, faster putting surfaces, so you can forget about dialing stimp speeds back.

What's your alternative solution that would allow superintendents to eliminate fans ?

[Steven Blake]

Mr. Mucci,

We've been waiting for his solution?

Steve Blake

[John Kavanaugh]

The 90's called, they want their supers back.  The world and more specifically the golf economy has changed.  This notion that members are out there stomping their feet demanding perfection is a ruse to keep high budgets at courses destined to fail if we don't change.  The high end club model is possible but the high budget club is obsolete.

I would like to know if the supers out there who have gone to bashing me on twitter and calling be a bully here even believe that you can have a high end club without it being a high budget club.

[Steven Blake]

John,

So your blaming superintendents for high budgets?

Steve Blake

[JESII]

I still remember John blaming supers for fans not quite sure why? But anyway ....  


Steve Blake

I don't think he blamed them on supers...I think he said super have become dependent on them to the detriment of the golf experience.

Quite simply, he would rather suffer through some turf loss than deal with the all of the negatives the fans present. I'm not sure I disagree with him.

[John Kavanaugh]

JakaB,

I know of your long standing gripe regarding fans.

I remember your criticism of Pine Valley for employing fans.

But, let me ask you a question.

If you needed brain surgery, and a new stent was invented that would improve the results of the surgery in terms of improved morbidity and improved mortality, would you refuse to have your surgeon implant the device ?

Suppose the device required an external port, visible to all, but, the introduction of that advanced stent, reduced complications and returned the mortality levels to that of the general population, would you decline it's use ?

I'm not a big fan of fans (pun intended), but, there are situations where greens sit in an area where air circulation and/or sunlight are scarce.  We know that the golfer of today, "demands" firmer, faster putting surfaces, so you can forget about dialing stimp speeds back.

What's your alternative solution that would allow superintendents to eliminate fans ?

Patrick,

That is a quality of life issue.  Here is a real world example of a man who chose to die rather than live on a machine.  

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/paralyzed-indiana-deer-hunter-ends-life/

I can't speak to what I would do in his situation but have stated and stand behind my contention that fans destroy the quality of my golf experience to the point that I would rather see a green die than have a fan.  I would think supers would love a guy like me that understands that sometimes greens die in extreme situations.  I believe the quality of the experience is tied to more than just the quality of the turf.

[Aaron McMaster]

I still remember John blaming supers for fans not quite sure why? But anyway ....  


Steve Blake

I don't think he blamed them on supers...I think he said super have become dependent on them to the detriment of the golf experience.

Quite simply, he would rather suffer through some turf loss than deal with the all of the negatives the fans present. I'm not sure I disagree with him.

The disconnect with you guys is your a very small minority.  Very small.  Not saying I wouldn't love to live in John's fantasy world but whether he thinks the 90's, 70's whatever decade he wishes to pick was better it's not todays reality.

I can tell you as a golfer and the all the golfers I know (which is a lot)  they will sacrifice a lot on a golf course, dead grass on tees, fairways and rough but greens are not one of those things.  People will go the extra mile and pay a little more if they know the course they can play regularly has really good greens.  You want to see your revenue go in the toliet in a hurry, lose some grass on greens in July.

[Steven Blake]

John,

Your right I would like people who thought and excepted turf loss from time to time.  But I don't like people who blame superintendents for the use of fans which is what you stated at the very beginning of this thread.  In another thread you said fans are used out plain laziness.  I can only assume you mean the superintendent and/or there staff. If not who are u referring too??

Steve Blake

[Steven Blake]

Aaron,

Great point and a good example up here in the north is courses that have winter kill and right after core aeration. Revenues go in the toilet !!

Steve Blake

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer.  Which was the better course?  Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open?  We need to turn back to save the game.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer.  Which was the better course?  Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open?  We need to turn back to save the game.

John,
  Ill ask a question that I already know the answer. Are you referring to the architecture or the turf conditions/quality? I already know the answer because science and technology have advanced too much in 30 years for the turf to NOT be better.