Why don’t we fight harder for what we know to be right?
Example #1. It is often said that golfers demand lush and green, and even though we know a dry golf course is vastly more fun to play, we keep most of our courses slow and soggy because the “market” demands it. Problem is, golfers actually hate a wet course. No one, NO ONE, likes mud on their ball. But, ask any golf course expert and they will tell you that the general public demands a bright green golf course. Problem is, we all know a dry course plays better, yet we in golf continue to excuse wet conditions by blaming the “market”.
Example #2. Ask any golf architect and they will tell you irrigation costs have gotten stupid high. They all know we are over doing it. Yet, like example 1 above, the market takes the blame. There is no reason at all for a 4 hour watering window, no reason at all to design a system based on the hottest week in the last five years; yet, we continue to see more, more, more. What we have is an industry that has done a very good job of getting in the superintendent’s ear. Whenever a new system is going in I hear comments like “Now is the time to spend the money”, or “let’s do it right,” all code for spend more. The manufacturers have done an outstanding job directing superintendents and managing consultants.
If you try and get someone to look at actual data instead of just going with industry standards, you are fighting an uphill battle. As long as this goes on you’ll never convince me money in golf is all that tight. All across America old irrigation systems are failing, yet rather than do something sensible, most are pushed into “doing it right” or can’t afford to do anything at all because they are convinced that all golf irrigation starts at 7 figures.
Example #3. Someone I know has a golf design commission. Don’t bother guessing as the course hasn’t been built yet and you’ve never heard about it. It is a great water front site, but a bit constrained in the area the clubhouse must be located. The owner had a land planner do a routing. To say it was bad is being kind. Using the same area, my friend suggested changes that not only made the course miles better, he also came up with a slightly better site for the clubhouse. I thought it was genius, the operator, already brought on by the owner, felt the short hike from 18 green to the club house (150 meters or so) was a major problem. The operator’s solution was a horrible uphill 18th and a very poor 1st hole, all in the name of the “market”.
You’ll have to take my word on the example above, but examples of bad architecture being driven by people who have no business directing architecture decisions are numerous. How many architects are willing to stand their ground and not rubber stamp owner or green committee direction? I recently visited a course that has multiple bunker and tee styles, all done by different architects, each of whom had been hired by a different green chairman. I don’t know how you fix that, but it was sad to see.
Why is there so much bad architecture at lower level courses? The AGCSA will say it is because not enough courses hire a qualified architect, and while there is certainly some truth to that, there is also a lot of bad work being done, and no one is calling it out.
Example #4. Golf is a walking game. Yet, no one really means that anymore. We are not attracting and retaining younger golfers. Our young “outdoorsy” types look at golf as a game for old men in funny colored pants. Some golf courses are trying to have a dual business of golf course and fitness center. Oh the irony; work out then grab a cart and play a quick 9. This is my most farfetched example, but I believe we need more adventurous courses that aren’t so focused on conditioning. And that adventurous approach should have a fitness angle. We are letting the golf cart ruin our game and our courses. Short term profits maybe, long term health, I don’t see it.