[Adrian_Stiff]

It's getting tiresome to constantly hear that just turning off the water will provide a firm surface at a typical clay soiled course.  What turning off the water WILL provide is a dead surface that still really won't be that firm.  Consistently firm surfaces on clay soil courses require immense labor, water management, and cultivation efforts.  For a low budget facility, these processes are completely out of reach.  They can't afford the tons of sand required, the equipment to create voids for the sand and relieve thatch, they can't even afford to close the course to allow for cultivation it even if they had the sand and machines, they don't have the dollars for efficient irrigation systems, they don't have the manpower to have guys running around with hoses to supplementally irrigate, and in general 95% of their clientele doesn't give a shit about "firm" anyway.  Then to point to a completely SAND based low budget course and say "hey they can do f&f!" is even more ignorant.

This, again, is just a rehash of the 'climate won't allow it' argument.

Yes, obviously it is fair to say that clay is not the ideal for good golf, but to suggest that an organic material which has survived for millions of years without the 'help' of a sprinkler will suddenly die if it doesn't rain for a few weeks is simply not true. It may look dead to the average golfer, scruffy even, but it isn't dead, unless of course you've gone to the hugely uneconomic expense of importing alien grasses with the sole intent of artificially keeping them alive. Or are you really going to tell me that the U.S, for example, has no clay based course which are run on a shoe string budget by one man and his dog which have lively conditions in the summer months? I'm not suggesting such places are ever going to play like Pinehurst but they're not going to play like a four day PGA fertiliser advert either.

And even where grass might suffer, there seems to be a very black and white attitude sometimes to irrigation. There are choices other than 'on' or 'off.'

Paul - Many of these grasses will die if they don't get water and are cut short. It is not like the UK where it is actually quite hard to kill grass.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

I hear you and was expecting such a response from someone. But again, limited watering is a different beast to no watering. I mentioned U.S cheap courses. Let's also then ask this question:

If water becomes an increasingly scarce commodity, and that of course is exactly what will be happening, are we suggesting that by only applying a limited amount of water to turf there will be thousands upon thousands of areas across the world which simply can not, purely due to climatic conditions, keep 18 flags in 18 holes?

[Brent Hutto]

I can dig 18 holes in my yard and put flags in them. But nobody is going to pay money to try and play golf on patchy Centipede grass with rocks in it. And if they did play golf, the Centipede would be trampled to death by about the 10th round. Then I'd just have the rocks and hardpan left.

[BHoover]

Paul, I don't believe anyone here disagrees with you that firm playing conditions are preferable to soft conditions. But it's obviously not so easy to achieve those ideal conditions, otherwise we would have them more frequently. So my question is, what is your solution?

The super at my course would love to keep the course firm and fast all season. He is working with a sand-based soil, which is rare here in central Ohio, but weather conditions in Ohio in July, August and early September, with extreme heat, humidity, thunderstorms and intense disease pressures, just don't make it feasible on a consistent basis. He runs the irrigation as sparingly as possible, usually just to keep the greens and fairways alive during stressful periods. But we are in a transition zone where cool-weather grasses won't handle the heat, and warm-weather grasses won't handle the cool temperatures. So where does that leave us?

[Paul Gray]

I can dig 18 holes in my yard and put flags in them. But nobody is going to pay money to try and play golf on patchy Centipede grass with rocks in it. And if they did play golf, the Centipede would be trampled to death by about the 10th round. Then I'd just have the rocks and hardpan left.

So there will be thousands of courses closing due purely to climatic conditions?

[Paul Gray]

Paul, I don't believe anyone here disagrees with you that firm playing conditions are preferable to soft conditions. But it's obviously not so easy to achieve those ideal conditions, otherwise we would have them more frequently. So my question is, what is your solution?

The super at my course would love to keep the course firm and fast all season. He is working with a sand-based soil, which is rare here in central Ohio, but weather conditions in Ohio in July, August and early September, with extreme heat, humidity, thunderstorms and intense disease pressures, just don't make it feasible on a consistent basis. He runs the irrigation as sparingly as possible, usually just to keep the greens and fairways alive during stressful periods. But we are in a transition zone where cool-weather grasses won't handle the heat, and warm-weather grasses won't handle the cool temperatures. So where does that leave us?

Was the course built before the widespread use of sprinklers? And anyway, it sounds to me as if your super is doing a pretty good job of giving you the best possible conditions. An excellent case in point of what can be done in a less than ideal climate zone, no?

[BHoover]

Paul, I don't believe anyone here disagrees with you that firm playing conditions are preferable to soft conditions. But it's obviously not so easy to achieve those ideal conditions, otherwise we would have them more frequently. So my question is, what is your solution?

The super at my course would love to keep the course firm and fast all season. He is working with a sand-based soil, which is rare here in central Ohio, but weather conditions in Ohio in July, August and early September, with extreme heat, humidity, thunderstorms and intense disease pressures, just don't make it feasible on a consistent basis. He runs the irrigation as sparingly as possible, usually just to keep the greens and fairways alive during stressful periods. But we are in a transition zone where cool-weather grasses won't handle the heat, and warm-weather grasses won't handle the cool temperatures. So where does that leave us?

Was the course built before the widespread use of sprinklers?

The course was built early 20th century. I don't know for certain whether the course originally had some type of irrigation system or not. But let's assume that the early course had little regular irrigation.

Are you suggesting that we revert to maintenence practices that were common in 1900? Because if that's the case, then I think you're way off base. If I'm mistaken then I apologize.

[David_Tepper]

Paul -

Maybe it is not just a matter of irrigation practices. London and Edinburgh average less than 30"'of rain annually. Hong Kong and Singapore average more than 80" of rain annually.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=349393

If you compared the range on temperatures between those cities over the course of the year, you would find a dramatic difference as well.
 
If you don't think that climate and soils have profound impact on the maintenance and presentation of a golf course, the nicest thing I can tell you is you are mistaken.

DT

[Paul Gray]

Paul -

Maybe it is not just a matter of irrigation practices. London and Edinburgh average less than 30"'of rain annually. Hong Kong and Singapore average more than 80" of rain annually.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=349393

If you compared the range on temperatures between those cities over the course of the year, you would find a dramatic difference as well.
 
If you don't think that climate and soils have profound impact on the maintenance and presentation of a golf course, the nicest thing I can tell you is you are mistaken.

DT

David,

There is absolutely no suggestion on my part that some places are more ideal than others. Absolutely no suggestion whatsoever. But we kid ourselves if we only think that golf is simply not possible without high end maintenance practices. Concessions are made because of what people will accept, not what is possible.

[Paul Gray]

Paul, I don't believe anyone here disagrees with you that firm playing conditions are preferable to soft conditions. But it's obviously not so easy to achieve those ideal conditions, otherwise we would have them more frequently. So my question is, what is your solution?

The super at my course would love to keep the course firm and fast all season. He is working with a sand-based soil, which is rare here in central Ohio, but weather conditions in Ohio in July, August and early September, with extreme heat, humidity, thunderstorms and intense disease pressures, just don't make it feasible on a consistent basis. He runs the irrigation as sparingly as possible, usually just to keep the greens and fairways alive during stressful periods. But we are in a transition zone where cool-weather grasses won't handle the heat, and warm-weather grasses won't handle the cool temperatures. So where does that leave us?

Was the course built before the widespread use of sprinklers?

The course was built early 20th century. I don't know for certain whether the course originally had some type of irrigation system or not. But let's assume that the early course had little regular irrigation.

Are you suggesting that we revert to maintenence practices that were common in 1900? Because if that's the case, then I think you're way off base. If I'm mistaken then I apologize.

Now we're getting somewhere. What would be your concern about rolling back the clock, so to speak?

[Joe Hancock]

One thing that would be helpful in this discussion would be that the institutions that profess to be experts in grass growing and golf course maintenance quit perpetuating the myth that green grass is alive and brown grass is dead.

I would love to see some research to help us understand how grass survives in a drought dormancy situation, as it pertains to golf course presentation. That would go a long way towards giving superintendents some tools when they discuss the what's and how's of getting turf to be less dependent on water/ fertilizer/ pesticides. Right now, nearly all of the information put out there concerning turf health relies on w/f/p.

The whole idea of adding water to keep grass "alive" is a big part of the problem.

Obviously, just my (overly) strong opinion.

Joe

[BHoover]

Unfortunately, golf is not played in a vacuum. What I mean is that we are not the majority of the golfing public. Unless and until the general golfing public comes around to our point of view, whether out of preference or economic reality, then I don't see how a substantial change can be effected. Again, what is your solution?

My problem with rolling back the clock, at least dramatically, is that the majority of the golfing public (i.e., the ones who pay the bills) don't want to putt on greens that roll at a 5, and play off shaggy fairways. Now, I'm not advocating for Tour green speeds, but a happy medium is where I would like to be. I just don't see how that's possible given differences in soils and climate conditions.

[Paul Gray]

Unfortunately, golf is not played in a vacuum. What I mean is that we are not the majority of the golfing public. Unless and until the general golfing public comes around to our point of view, whether out of preference or economic reality, then I don't see how a substantial change can be effected. Again, what is your solution?

My problem with rolling back the clock, at least dramatically, is that the majority of the golfing public (i.e., the ones who pay the bills) don't want to putt on greens that roll at a 5, and play off shaggy fairways. Now, I'm not advocating for Tour green speeds, but a happy medium is where I would like to be. I just don't see how that's possible given differences in soils and climate conditions.

Exactly what I was hoping to hear. Thank you for your support.

So, as always becomes evident when we have this conversation, we end up debunking, yet again, the 'climate won't allow it' myth. Climate isn't the issue at all, the market place is. For that very reason I've continually been specifically asking questions solely about climate and, in the end, no one can reasonably claim that it's lush and green or nothing. The 'climate won't allow it' argument is simply a smoke screen for 'people won't buy it.' 

So, with the myth debunked yet again, I'll remind all that the original question centred solely on playing benefits. No mention of the status quo, no mention of the fact that the status quo is what currently sells. The whole basis of the thread was about the need for change and, by extension, how what's best for golf as a game can become what's best for the golf industry. We all know that the average golfer currently places  style over substance, either because he or she has limited knowledge to work with or he or she is simply too vacuous to consider anything of real substance. It doesn't help when even those that are in the GCA camp, so to speak, get seduced by the myth.

PS: Nice post Joe. It's about knowledge vs the snake oil salesman.

[Joe Hancock]

Brian,

Waiting for preferences to change or economic reality to affect change isn't being proactive, which is, IMO, exactly what golf needs right now. There seems to be a lot more tail wagging the dog then leadership as it pertains to this discussion.

Education would be a proactive approach. As an example, I'll re-share this experience I had when I was an active superintendent:

I had been on a years-long kick of reduction; less water, less everything, really. The golfers loved the added length they were experiencing off the tee, but one day a group waved me over to the hole they were playing. The green was a pushed up green, sloping off in all directions, but with an open approach skirting a greenside bunker. They were flying their wedges in and ending up over the green. After informing me that I needed to add water to soften things, I pulled a 6 iron from one of their bags, asked for a ball, and(fortunately for me) I managed to hit a low bounder up to 3 feet from the hole. They looked at me with a smile and asked " do you really want us to play golf like that?" I responded with" I think you'll have a great time using your imagination when you play golf like that".

I don't know if I changed the mind of one person, four people, or a 144 people that day, but it's the kind of thing we need more of. And, it was my privilege to be in a position to share my opinion with those golfers that day.

Hope this helps,

Joe

[Paul Gray]

Brian,

You asked me what is needed.

My answer is simply education. Or, to put it another way, a lot more evangelists like myself and Joe.

But really, passively hoping for change ain't gonna get us anywhere. Each and every golfer that really gives a damn needs to be doing and saying all he or she can to effect change. There's no obligation to give a damn, but there's equally no point in claiming to care and simultaneously keeping quiet.

[jeffwarne]

Lots of ways to look at this.
and Paul's utopia is a good one, but it's not always that simple.

We(here) all love firm and fast when conditions allow.
Those conditions aren't always obtainable for a variety of reasons.
It's no small coincidence that the courses here that produce it have the BIGGEST budgets allowing for frequent topdressing, aerifying, dethatching, and extremely sophisticated irrigation systems.
The utopia Paul seeks does exist, at certain times on very low end courses, though most low end courses find watering cheaper than regrassing/reseeding later.
A major problem in the northeast US is when it's the hottest, is when people play the most golf so traffic is heaviest when the grass is the most susceptible.
Throw in carts (when are people MOST likely to take them?-when it's hot).
Traffic on dormant grass (which is a great surface to play on) can quickly make it dead grass.

Turning off the water on bermuda (Pinehurst) is a lot different than turning off the water on bent, esp at 95 degrees and 90% humidity.

The difficulty is if a course is willing to lose a bit of grass for better overall playing surface, will the PAYING crowd accept it.
I know at my beloved Goat they apologize for the dusty conditions and people are happiest when a bit of rain gets the crabgrass running, which absolutely takes the enjoyment out for me when it's high in front of the greens .
But perhaps my enjoyment is aided by the fact that the course is emptiest when it's driest and dustiest (great for me--not real good for business.....)

No question that the public needs educating, but those who do the educating by example may lose more customers than they gain.
Which is perfect IF you survive.
That's part of the whole knucklehead problem of Grow the game-the game can only grow properly at a certain pace and when that pace accelerates artificially (Tiger/golf is cool/big holes), knuckleheads slip through the cracks and we're stuck with them, and worse yet many places are catering to them for survival.

I do know one late October I hosted a GCAer who commented our course not playing firm enough and being too green.
 At that point we had not run the anywhere water since early September due to fall rains and cooler air and soil temperatures. Mother nature is going to dictate until we put up domes. (or sub air )

and to your point Paul, we need to vote with our feet and educate and encourage others to do the same.
Seems to me when one chooses Trump over Murcar, they're NOT voting with their feet, and more importantly missing out on a gem.

[Jason Thurman]

Educated evangelists tend to be the most effective ones. The ones with strong opinions about topics on which they are ignorant are generally called lunatics.

On this site, we're surrounded by people who know a great deal about growing grass in regional climates around the globe, just as the superintendent at most golf courses knows far more about turf than the average self-righteous "proper golf" advocate whose greenskeeping experience is limited to occasional bunker raking and ballmark repair. It behooves most of us to learn from our greenskeepers as opposed to lecturing at them with naive idealism.

I wish my home course played firmer and faster. I've advocated for and voted for several purchases which will help to make it so. But when it's a bit soft in mid-July, I understand why. Fast and firm in Ohio costs a lot of money.

[Paul Gray]

Jeff,

Exactly. The market place is what is preventing better conditions. Again, while some places are better than others are the Sahara Desert is unlikely be prime golf country, we are wrong to think that climate prevents proper golf in much of the world.

Interested to hear your comments about people playing less when it's dry. I can honestly say that my experience has always been the opposite. Apologies to those that have heard this more than once but last year I was working in a Pro Shop at a course which is predominantly clay based (it's a tale from my very early mid life crisis catalogue again). Due to a hot, dry summer and zero irrigation the turf was predictably brown. I couldn't get over the fact that player after player would appear in the Pro Shop post round and would be full of smiles and comments about how much fun he or she had just had. But then, almost without fail, and despite telling me how much fun they'd just had, "it's a bit brown though" would be the last word. I swear I have never witnessed people appear so utterly brainwashed. They literally said it as a default comment without any conscious consideration on their part. It was as if the PGA had planted something in their brains. When I explained that the reason they had enjoyed themselves was because of, rather than in spite of, the brownness, I thought a few of them were going to malfunction and was waiting to hear "does not compute." The point really is that golfers are easily programmed by television and they generally struggle to distinguish between what they actually prefer and what they think they prefer.

Jason,

But we've already established that your comments are simply a reflection of what sells in the current market, rather than what is environmentally viable. But I wouldn't expect anything less. Perhaps you'd direct your comments about ignorance to Joe, a superintendent who doesn't back your defence of lazy thinking. 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Southern turfgrass management is a whole new science. I have sat in on seminars at the GCSAA a few times specifically to try and gain knowledge. If I was designing a course in those zones I would have on board an agronomist that knows that regions. UK agronomists probably are not educated to know enough and certainly Jim Arthur was total and utter embarressment when quizzed on his US turf knowledge by a Canadian that will remain nameless on one I sat in back in 87.

To put it bluntly, you can lose turf in less than 1 day. These superintendents are highly skilled they know what they can do or not do. It is still not so easy to water sparingly. Many golf courses in the US have plumbers employed full time and sometimes two or three fixing repairs. Irrigation in some climates is essential and expensive. Turning off the water will just equal shit grass conditions and you will lose your golfers.

We are so lucky here, but then again we invented the game except we called it Gawlf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

When I see responses like this here I really do wonder if the game has any hope.

Let's just stop this myth that good golf is in some way expensive. The opposite is true and you all know it. How many of you come to Britain to play courses with budgets which are just a fraction of their over watered brethren? And how many of you really believe that a sparsely maintained, firm and fast golf course is unattainable in China unless more money is thrown at the problem than is currently being spent to keep conditions lush and green? Come on.

Paul,

Agreed

Ask those complaining about cost how much it costs to ski, or take your family to an NBA, MLB or NFL game.

From another perspective, if someone spends $ 20,000,000 or more to develop a golf course are they not entitled to get their money back or should they be forced to have the golf course function as a charitable cause ?

[Craig Sweet]

I find this topic smug and arrogant....and ultimately pointless.

"Proper golf"

[Jon Wiggett]

The super at my course would love to keep the course firm and fast all season. He is working with a sand-based soil, which is rare here in central Ohio, but weather conditions in Ohio in July, August and early September, with extreme heat, humidity, thunderstorms and intense disease pressures, just don't make it feasible on a consistent basis.

For the intense disease pressures you have to look at why a disease becomes so prevalent as to require action. I doubt it is the heat, humidity or thunderstorms unless the course is losing its grass wall to wall. Then at least you have a starting point.

 But we are in a transition zone where cool-weather grasses won't handle the heat, and warm-weather grasses won't handle the cool temperatures. So where does that leave us?

What grasses grow the region naturally in the sward. Take the most suitable for the purpose and use these.

Brian, in the end it depends what the priorities are. If it is trying to work with the climate then you have to accept the type of golfing onditions this allows. If it is trying to create an artificial type of playing surface from a climate point of view then it has to be accepted that there will be a compromise. I think you have hit the nail on the head with your comment about cool and warm season grasses and that leaves you having to accept a compromise or change what you are trying to achieve.


Adrian,

Jim Arthur was certainly no expert about non UK/Central-Northern European turf grass but then again he did not need to be. His ideas about course maintenance were bang on but certainly not the only right way to go about it. I was not there and so do not know why he would even be asked about US turf but it would be silly to think he ought to know anything about it in real depth.

I have yet to meet someone who did have a good understanding of more than one region of turf grass.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

I find this topic smug and arrogant....and ultimately pointless.

"Proper golf"

Smug and arrogant: fine.

But if your going to question the notion of 'proper golf' I'd suggest you're in the wrong chat room.

[Joe Hancock]

I find this topic smug and arrogant....and ultimately pointless.

"Proper golf"

This happens often when opinions are shared. Someone will disagree, or worse. In fact, I can imagine that someone will find the fact that you opined you find this topic smug and arrogant, ultimately pointless.

That, in and of itself, is no reason to stifle discussion, however.

I happen to think(as in, an opinion) the topic is highly valid even if the phrase "proper golf" may not be acceptable or correct to some. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Joe

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - Jim Arthur thought he knew everything and in the early eighties blabbered a lot that the Americans did not know what they were doing and thay were all wet it and feed it merchants. First time I sat down with some American super-intendents I felt totally inept as they were talking in a language far above my knowledge. Thankfully our UK greenkeepers are better educated now but no thanks to JA who was one dimensional and caused havoc to many head green keepers with policies that were so unpractical. I much preferred Martyn Jones and later George Shiels.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()