[Thomas Dai]

Do folks consider that with an ever increasing world population and ever more demand for water that lessening levels of greenness at most golf courses is likely to evolve anyway?
ATB

[Steven Blake]

Mr Dai,

One word answer ...NO!

Steve Blake
Golf Course Superintendent

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas Dai,

I had that argument brought up to me on a project in MN ten years ago.  The speaker tried to equate no drinking water in Kenya (or some African country) to us using water in MN.  

So I asked what one had to do with the other?  Nothing we do here affects what happens there, because we can't ship water there, and also, its as much a govt and infrastructure issue as it is an availability issue.  We need to be real careful about signing up for restrictions based on a problem somewhere else for some completely different reason.

In the US, I can see desert courses going browner, or using newer turf, etc.  Can't see it in rainier areas. It really is a local issue, not a global one.

[Steven Blake]

Mr. Brauer,

I disagree with your assessment and that is the problem we as turf managers have an uphill battle to climb.  People believe the only reason less water is a good idea is for environmental reasons.  If you look at my other post I state many other great benefits to less water.  Sustainably alone is a big one particularly those clubs looking to save a buck! And for fans of this site, architectural intent, is another reason for less water.  

Your point is well taken though, here in Wisconsin I cannot use the rationale that we should use less water because other areas of the country/world have a water shortage.  The Great Lakes region has an abundance of water and may never see a shortage of any kind.  That doesn't diminish Don and my claim that we need to speak up.  Something needs to be done for the good of the game.

Steve Blake

[Mike_Young]

Don,

Most of the time:

An architect who designs "less" is not going to get paid "more".
An irrigation designer who designs "less" isn't going to get paid "more".
A superintendent who grooms/waters/fertilizes/etc. "less" isn't going to get paid "more".

You get the idea. Many times, doing less is the right thing. But, the basic human instinct isn't to pay more for less, even of it presents a superior product. People who do more often do it for more money. In many ways, that's why I think the universities and associations push for doing more to courses instead of providing solutions that could cost less.

There's no money in doing less.

Joe

Joe,
IMHO it all begins at the universities.  Professors look for grants and grants come form vendors that will benefit from the research and conclusions.  Superintendents are trained by these professors.  Catch my drift??

Stephen Davis:  You say:"I don't know how much credibility the ASGCA has or maybe I should say should have. I have seen some recent work done by a former President of the ASGCA and this particular individual has never designed a course that I have seen that is halfway decent. Now he does a big reno job for big money (Over $4 Million) and the course got taken to the cleaners. It is so sad to see the wastefulness and lack of design integrity from someone who was the President of such an association. Doesn't give me much confidence in the ASGCA to be honest. "


As much as I bitch about  the ASGCA I really hate to have to defend such but the ASGCA has never designed a golf course.  I know what you are saying but it is 1. an opinion and 2. an individual effort from a member.    Try thinking about it this way.  I would say it's a good bet that any architect that is not a member of ASGCA is probably an owner of his business and signs the front of the checks.  There are still many in ASGCA that may have been allowed in but they are employees.   There is a huge difference even with the top guys.  So the ASGCA argument doesn't hold up.  The bad architect argument does.  

Carl,
you say: "
Mike-
I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted part.  I belong to a pretty typical "country club" in a major metropolitan area, and I try to avoid thinking about my per-round cost when I can avoid it, especially when it's winter.  Indeed, I am certainly well aware that my per-round cost is pretty high -- but I also seriously doubt it's "subsidized" by anything other than my monthly dues checks.   (If anything, those checks probably subsidize our F&B, tennis and pool operations, rather than the other way around.).  I'm happy paying more because I'm getting something of value--the club is a lot closer to my house than any public course of comparable quality; I can always play weekend mornings in less than four hours; there's a pool, tennis courts and other things for the non-golfers in my family; I've got a regular group of guys I enjoy playing with; and, yes, the course is usually in better condition than public courses around here."

Maybe you can think of a word better than subsidized but IMHO a private club is in itself a subsidy for those who use the club more than others.  The members one never sees who come once or twice per month and never use the club but maybe to have a burger etc are subsidizing the rest.  It's just the way it works.  Our club is a 1926 Ross and has around 900 members with only 400 playing golf.  Us golfers are subsidized and thankful for it....

[Steven Blake]

Mr. Young,

Thanks for calling out universities and there pointless research. I agree 100%.  An overwhelming majority universities teach symptom based management. Not to mention research is skewed with big $ donations from chemical companies.  

This doesn't mean I don't read research or disregard everything that comes out these days, I just look at everything with a good deal of skepticism.  

Steve Blake  

[BCowan]

Don great post.

    I think two solutions could help the most in selling brown is better or firm and fast.

1.  This would never happen.  Augusta National didn't over seed their fairways like Pinehurst #2 doesn't.  Most Green Committees think Augusta is gold standard.

2.  The other more viable case study would be if one guy on his green committee actually got it, he could take 3 others on his committee to experience a course like Kingsley Club (or one similar)!  They would love getting 40+ yards roll off their tee shots.  Hopefully the greens aren't rolling over 10, like when i played it.  Some people just need to experience firm and fast, and they only think of courses across the pond!  

[John Kavanaugh]

Why bother when the industry just calls you stupid. Look at the fans thread where I am told it is either fans or dirt.

[Steven Blake]

I would love to see Augusta National for the Masters with dormant Bermuda fairways and tees! Too bad it will never happen! 

[Mike_Young]

The one item never mentioned and it is a big item when it comes to brown.  The power bill is greatly reduced when you dont water fairways as much.  And at $40-$50 green fees that matters.

[Carl Nichols]

Don,

Most of the time:

An architect who designs "less" is not going to get paid "more".
An irrigation designer who designs "less" isn't going to get paid "more".
A superintendent who grooms/waters/fertilizes/etc. "less" isn't going to get paid "more".

You get the idea. Many times, doing less is the right thing. But, the basic human instinct isn't to pay more for less, even of it presents a superior product. People who do more often do it for more money. In many ways, that's why I think the universities and associations push for doing more to courses instead of providing solutions that could cost less.

There's no money in doing less.

Joe

Joe,
IMHO it all begins at the universities.  Professors look for grants and grants come form vendors that will benefit from the research and conclusions.  Superintendents are trained by these professors.  Catch my drift??

Stephen Davis:  You say:"I don't know how much credibility the ASGCA has or maybe I should say should have. I have seen some recent work done by a former President of the ASGCA and this particular individual has never designed a course that I have seen that is halfway decent. Now he does a big reno job for big money (Over $4 Million) and the course got taken to the cleaners. It is so sad to see the wastefulness and lack of design integrity from someone who was the President of such an association. Doesn't give me much confidence in the ASGCA to be honest. "


As much as I bitch about  the ASGCA I really hate to have to defend such but the ASGCA has never designed a golf course.  I know what you are saying but it is 1. an opinion and 2. an individual effort from a member.    Try thinking about it this way.  I would say it's a good bet that any architect that is not a member of ASGCA is probably an owner of his business and signs the front of the checks.  There are still many in ASGCA that may have been allowed in but they are employees.   There is a huge difference even with the top guys.  So the ASGCA argument doesn't hold up.  The bad architect argument does.  

Carl,
you say: "
Mike-
I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted part.  I belong to a pretty typical "country club" in a major metropolitan area, and I try to avoid thinking about my per-round cost when I can avoid it, especially when it's winter.  Indeed, I am certainly well aware that my per-round cost is pretty high -- but I also seriously doubt it's "subsidized" by anything other than my monthly dues checks.   (If anything, those checks probably subsidize our F&B, tennis and pool operations, rather than the other way around.).  I'm happy paying more because I'm getting something of value--the club is a lot closer to my house than any public course of comparable quality; I can always play weekend mornings in less than four hours; there's a pool, tennis courts and other things for the non-golfers in my family; I've got a regular group of guys I enjoy playing with; and, yes, the course is usually in better condition than public courses around here."

Maybe you can think of a word better than subsidized but IMHO a private club is in itself a subsidy for those who use the club more than others.  The members one never sees who come once or twice per month and never use the club but maybe to have a burger etc are subsidizing the rest.  It's just the way it works.  Our club is a 1926 Ross and has around 900 members with only 400 playing golf.  Us golfers are subsidized and thankful for it....

Mike-
Got it, but I don't see any problem with it.  To me, all that means is that for some golfers, it's worth it to them to pay as much as they do for as little golf as they play (at the kind of club you belong to).  They'd probably rather pay less for what they're getting, but there just isn't a market for that -- and the market, as represented by your club, is providing them with exactly what they're willing to pay for.  If they didn't like it, they'd just leave.

[Mike_Young]

Carl,
I see absolutely no problem with it and am grateful for it.  My comment was directed toward letting guys know that the green fee club does not have such a luxury. That's all I was saying.

[Jud_T]

How many GCAs have seen their designs compromised by overzealous greening?

[Thomas Dai]

When I asked the question "Do folks consider that with an ever increasing world population and ever more demand for water that lessening levels of greenness at most golf courses is likely to evolve anyway?" I wasn't thinking in terms of environmental issues or Kenya/Africa as have been mentioned since, although these are important. I was focusing on population.

Steve mentions his golf course in Wisconsin. Although probably not the best state/country/climate area to consider, but as an example, in the last 100 yrs the population of WI has tripled, and by the standards of many states/countries/climate areas this is not a large increase.

Trend population increases forward and expand the issue to other parts of the globe. Water to drink, crops to grow, animals/livestock to farm, water for industry? What gets priority? Water for golf courses or water to drink? Water for golf courses or water to allow crops to grow? Water for golf courses or water for animal/livestock farming? Water for golf courses or water for industry? Throughout history wars have been fought over water supplies. There is already concern regarding China's plans to divert water from the massive Brahmaputra River into their own river system, which has consequences for India and Bangladesh with their huge and ever expanding populations.

What I'm hypothesising is that irrespective of any 'go-brown'-'stay green' movement within the golf community it is evolution and population growth that are likely to result in less green golf courses, although not everywhere, not necessarily in WI, nor temperate areas of the globe, and not immediately, but sometime down the line. Golf, and green golf courses in particular, might be important to some, but are not in the slightest bit important if you and your animals/livestock are thirsty or hungry or your crops won't grow, and the more mouths there are on the planet the greater the demand for water.

Furthermore, Mike Young makes an interesting point when he says "The one item never mentioned and it is a big item when it comes to brown. The power bill is greatly reduced when you dont water fairways as much."

All the best

[Tom_Doak]

I wish the economics of Augusta National were better understood by the golfing public, so that comparisons to Augusta would cease.

Augusta National Golf Club makes more than $10,000,000 per year by selling the TV rights to their tournament.  This allows them to spend anything and everything they want on making their golf course look perfect on TV, and setting unrealistic expectations for the rest of the industry.  Indeed, they struggle to come up with ways to spend even a good chunk of that money, before they donate the rest to charity.  They could just about afford to rebuild their entire golf course every year.

[Chris Johnston]

"They could just about afford to rebuild their entire golf course every year."   Tom...Don't give them any ideas.

Don, I think we speak pretty loud out our way.

[Stephen Davis]

Don,

Most of the time:

An architect who designs "less" is not going to get paid "more".
An irrigation designer who designs "less" isn't going to get paid "more".
A superintendent who grooms/waters/fertilizes/etc. "less" isn't going to get paid "more".

You get the idea. Many times, doing less is the right thing. But, the basic human instinct isn't to pay more for less, even of it presents a superior product. People who do more often do it for more money. In many ways, that's why I think the universities and associations push for doing more to courses instead of providing solutions that could cost less.

There's no money in doing less.

Joe

Joe,
IMHO it all begins at the universities.  Professors look for grants and grants come form vendors that will benefit from the research and conclusions.  Superintendents are trained by these professors.  Catch my drift??

Stephen Davis:  You say:"I don't know how much credibility the ASGCA has or maybe I should say should have. I have seen some recent work done by a former President of the ASGCA and this particular individual has never designed a course that I have seen that is halfway decent. Now he does a big reno job for big money (Over $4 Million) and the course got taken to the cleaners. It is so sad to see the wastefulness and lack of design integrity from someone who was the President of such an association. Doesn't give me much confidence in the ASGCA to be honest. "


As much as I bitch about  the ASGCA I really hate to have to defend such but the ASGCA has never designed a golf course.  I know what you are saying but it is 1. an opinion and 2. an individual effort from a member.    Try thinking about it this way.  I would say it's a good bet that any architect that is not a member of ASGCA is probably an owner of his business and signs the front of the checks.  There are still many in ASGCA that may have been allowed in but they are employees.   There is a huge difference even with the top guys.  So the ASGCA argument doesn't hold up.  The bad architect argument does.  

Carl,
you say: "
Mike-
I'm not sure what you mean by the highlighted part.  I belong to a pretty typical "country club" in a major metropolitan area, and I try to avoid thinking about my per-round cost when I can avoid it, especially when it's winter.  Indeed, I am certainly well aware that my per-round cost is pretty high -- but I also seriously doubt it's "subsidized" by anything other than my monthly dues checks.   (If anything, those checks probably subsidize our F&B, tennis and pool operations, rather than the other way around.).  I'm happy paying more because I'm getting something of value--the club is a lot closer to my house than any public course of comparable quality; I can always play weekend mornings in less than four hours; there's a pool, tennis courts and other things for the non-golfers in my family; I've got a regular group of guys I enjoy playing with; and, yes, the course is usually in better condition than public courses around here."

Maybe you can think of a word better than subsidized but IMHO a private club is in itself a subsidy for those who use the club more than others.  The members one never sees who come once or twice per month and never use the club but maybe to have a burger etc are subsidizing the rest.  It's just the way it works.  Our club is a 1926 Ross and has around 900 members with only 400 playing golf.  Us golfers are subsidized and thankful for it....

Mike,

You have a point, however, this guy was the president, not just a member and like it or not the actions of the president of any organization reflect directly upon that organization and its members (see USGA and R&A for examples). My point in posting this was to offer up an argument that consulting an ASGCA architect is not always the thing to do, or rather that just because they might be part of the ASGCA or even the president of the ASGCA doesn't mean that they know what they are doing or that they will provide a quality product when all is said and done.

[Don_Mahaffey]

"They could just about afford to rebuild their entire golf course every year."   Tom...Don't give them any ideas.

Don, I think we speak pretty loud out our way.

Chris, yes you do. The most enjoyable part of the Ren Cup was hearing what the players had to say about the Red. On such a young course the usual comments are condition based, as in, wait until it matures, or just think what it will be like in a few years...but I heard almost none of that because golf was the focus with great design, sensible construction, and basic maintenance. When the golf is good, no one cares how many sprinklers are in the ground or what kind of mowers you use. When we just make it about the game, about playing the game in a fun and challenging way, the other stuff that adds so much cost is not missed and fades away. What Tom and the RGD crew, and DRC did to create that new course is a story worth repeating. Not much convention out there, but some really good golf.

[Steve Okula]

Mr. Young,

Thanks for calling out universities and there pointless research. I agree 100%.  An overwhelming majority universities teach symptom based management. Not to mention research is skewed with big $ donations from chemical companies.  

This doesn't mean I don't read research or disregard everything that comes out these days, I just look at everything with a good deal of skepticism.  

Steve Blake  

What is "symptom based management"?

Could you name two examples of published academic research that has been corrupted by donations from chemical companies?

[Bill_McBride]

I wish the economics of Augusta National were better understood by the golfing public, so that comparisons to Augusta would cease.

Augusta National Golf Club makes more than $10,000,000 per year by selling the TV rights to their tournament.  This allows them to spend anything and everything they want on making their golf course look perfect on TV, and setting unrealistic expectations for the rest of the industry.  Indeed, they struggle to come up with ways to spend even a good chunk of that money, before they donate the rest to charity.  They could just about afford to rebuild their entire golf course every year.

I thought they did!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thomas Dai,

I think if you researched it, you would find that most states in the US have or are implementing water policies. I know Texas has.  And, as you suggest, golf courses are pretty low on the list of priorities, with many areas of the country already cutting allocations for golf, some significantly.

Overall, I think they get it about right, although anyone can argue the details from their perspective.  At one time, Ag uses were about 80% of total water used, golf courses about 1%. Not sure of any recent stats, to be honest.   You would think they would work on the biggest users, but the ag lobby is pretty strong, too.  Politics is a messy process. I am not sure if the "right" opinion always prevails.  Usually, they pass some law that has everyone teed off to some degree, and in their eyes, that might be a huge success, meaning it was a good compromise.

Back to ag.  Let's say they still use 80% of our water resources. Let's say Congress decides ag has to reduce irrigation by 20%, but at the same time, disallows GMO crops.  It is their right, and has some reason to do it.  That said, what is the answer?  Go hungry in America?  Stop exports that pay bills and feed the world? Or let them have all the water they are accustomed to?

So, no offense taken at any post, but its just harder issues than we can address in broad brush fashion here.

[Bill Brightly]

Don and the other Superintendents.

Let me turn the question around. As a member of a private club in the Northeast US, how loudly should I speak up to my superintendent? How do I know if he isn't already pushing our course as far as a reasonable super would in July and August? How do I know if he is overwatering, applying too many chemicals and generally "babying" the course, versus just acting prudently?

Is our superintendent applying water at night just to keep the course green for the members? Or simply giving the grass the water it needs to survive?

At what point do I become a micromanaging member versus someone who is willing to work to "sell" a little brown to our membership for the sake of firmer and faster playing conditions? (FYI, I was on the Greens Committee for 3 years before becoming Chair for 4 years. But answering these questions does not get any easier with more knowledge than the average member...)

[Grant Saunders]

I wish the economics of Augusta National were better understood by the golfing public, so that comparisons to Augusta would cease.

Augusta National Golf Club makes more than $10,000,000 per year by selling the TV rights to their tournament.  This allows them to spend anything and everything they want on making their golf course look perfect on TV, and setting unrealistic expectations for the rest of the industry.  Indeed, they struggle to come up with ways to spend even a good chunk of that money, before they donate the rest to charity.  They could just about afford to rebuild their entire golf course every year.

I cant help but think the "Augusta Syndrome" has become pretty heavily overplayed and is more myth than reality.

Lets give people a little credit. No one watches a program on TV showing the houses of the rich and famous and then expects that their house should automatically be the same. Likewise watching the Masters I think most people understand they are viewing one of the most unique, resource laden golf courses on earth prepared for the top golfers in the world.

Much like "the market" its an easy direction to point a finger.

[Mike_Young]

Thomas Dai,

I think if you researched it, you would find that most states in the US have or are implementing water policies. I know Texas has.  And, as you suggest, golf courses are pretty low on the list of priorities, with many areas of the country already cutting allocations for golf, some significantly.

Overall, I think they get it about right, although anyone can argue the details from their perspective.  At one time, Ag uses were about 80% of total water used, golf courses about 1%. Not sure of any recent stats, to be honest.   You would think they would work on the biggest users, but the ag lobby is pretty strong, too.  Politics is a messy process. I am not sure if the "right" opinion always prevails.  Usually, they pass some law that has everyone teed off to some degree, and in their eyes, that might be a huge success, meaning it was a good compromise.

Back to ag.  Let's say they still use 80% of our water resources. Let's say Congress decides ag has to reduce irrigation by 20%, but at the same time, disallows GMO crops.  It is their right, and has some reason to do it.  That said, what is the answer?  Go hungry in America?  Stop exports that pay bills and feed the world? Or let them have all the water they are accustomed to?

So, no offense taken at any post, but its just harder issues than we can address in broad brush fashion here.

Jeff,
Don't you think the answer to the water issue is going to be a lot like the gasoline issue of old.  Cars used to get 5-8 miles per gallon and now the same style gets 25 or 30.    Our efficiency in water usage is terrible compared to where it will be.  Some guy will find a delivery method for water that will cut water usage in ag and golf tremendously. 

[SL_Solow]

Bill;  As a non super who advises committees in conjunction with a golf association and a super's association, let me suggest that you ask your super what he thinks privately.  If he is receptive, the place to lobby is at your club's greens committee or board.  If you can gain some traction, they will ask the super and he can respond with encouragement, data and the like.  You protect him by letting him respond to member questions as opposed to sticking his neck out when he isn't sure how his chairman will react.  You may gain ground and you will likely make a friend who will be willing to help in the future because he will know you have his back.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()