[Paul Gray]

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.

And have they made the game both better and more sustainable? Serious question.

[Jason Thurman]

Paul, in as much as what sells is turfgrass that's actually alive, you're right, I'm concerned with what sells in my current market.

I'm a huge fan of firm and fast conditions. I advocate for them at every greens committee meeting, and I send e-mails to my superintendent, club president, GM, and head pro when the course is in what I consider to be ideal shape. With our bentgrass fairways, my superintendent tells me that we can't let them get too dry and hot in mid-summer or the turf will die. I don't have the expertise to contradict him, but it sounds like you think you do. Paul, I think Brian and I would both love more information on how to make a bentgrass course play fast and firm in the American Midwest in summer.

Can you tell us what our superintendents should be doing? Keep in mind that my club currently spends less on course maintenance than any other private club in the city, and we'd like not to increase costs too much. Thankfully, you've assured me that proper golf is cheap.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul -  Don't really know how it relates to making the game better, they more found a way to get the best turf quality if that's what you mean. I think they were both very practical. Both MJ & GS advocated using the irrigation to supplement rainfall but in a way that you watered heavily perhaps twice a week, rather than a lesser amount daily so you mimicked real rainfall pattern. They both preached about soil exchange/heavy hollow coring as their method to control and reduce thatch. Jim Arthur was a 5 year starvation programme where you are likely to have the worst greens in the area until Poa is driven out. Jim's method would not have worked for the last few summers as most UK courses have had plenty from the sky. As I said Jim Arthur was too one dimensional. If he was still alive he would be on here ranting and raving every day.

The theory of your arguement is good Paul, F&F is a big thumbs up from me. It just can't be done universally, some of thick bladed grasses are not friendly to chip on even when munched short. Even in Spain (two hours from the UK) you need Bermuda fairways.

[Paul Gray]

Jason,

No one is blaming your supers. Those guys produce the product they are told to produce. Again, this conversation began by identifying what works best, not what sells best. And if you read back through my posts you'll see that I was very specific about environmental, rather than market, factors. Focusing on environment, Brian was able to confirm for me that his course existed long before the widespread use of sprinklers, hence his course was able to exist without such 'technology.'  

But moving on, no one is disputing that the majority of golfers around the world assume lush is a sign of quality. If you get playing conditions to their ideal state you might go bankrupt. No one has disputed that. The issue is how we change that, hence I commented on the need to change perceptions in order for what's good for golf to equally be what's good for numbers. But when I pointed out that we all have a responsibility to get the message out there you tried to dismiss my comments as naive so I redirected you to a greenkeeper that doesn't share your opinion. Maybe you think Joe is equally naive. Only you know that.

[Joe Hancock]

A question: Has anyone here played on un-irrigated bermudagrass mowed at fairway height? By un-irrigated, I mean just that; fairways that had zero sprinklers/ couplers? I'm just curious as I am questioning some of the blanket statements about grass types that get perpetuated here. I also understand that certain standards exist for what is deemed acceptable, so don't take the question as an offensive attack as I would rather have a fact-based discussion. If it leads to one person, somewhere,, who wants to take steps to create a golfing environment that is more fun, less reliant, less expensive, etc, then the discussion is worth having.

Joe

[Paul Gray]

........The theory of your arguement is good Paul, F&F is a big thumbs up from me. It just can't be done universally, some of thick bladed grasses are not friendly to chip on even when munched short. Even in Spain (two hours from the UK) you need Bermuda fairways.

Adrian,

Thanks for your response.

Now, I've said repeatedly that not all climates (or soils or turfs) are equal. You and I know that to be true even here in the relatively temperate UK. You're a smart guy and you know what can and can't be done in your little bit of the planet and you do not feel the need to default to some indoctrinated position. But you're not the average club manager and the vast majority do the exact opposite to you. So ultimately we are talking about changing the default position, changing certain assumptions, because god only knows that if those same assumptions can fly around here they're not going to be wiped out overnight when you're dealing with golfers and club managers that frequently have little to no industry experience.

[BHoover]

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.

I would encourage you to start or purchase your own course and implement all the changes in playing conditions and maintenance practices you are advocating. I will be happy to support your course. But if you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, then this is just wishful thinking, unfortunately.

[jeffwarne]

A question: Has anyone here played on un-irrigated bermudagrass mowed at fairway height? By un-irrigated, I mean just that; fairways that had zero sprinklers/ couplers? I'm just curious as I am questioning some of the blanket statements about grass types that get perpetuated here. I also understand that certain standards exist for what is deemed acceptable, so don't take the question as an offensive attack as I would rather have a fact-based discussion. If it leads to one person, somewhere,, who wants to take steps to create a golfing environment that is more fun, less reliant, less expensive, etc, then the discussion is worth having.

Joe

Joe,
Palmetto Golf Club's fairways were unirrigated until the late 80's.
They were firm and fast to play off and the best part was the fairways had native sandy areas as "rough"-partially caused no doubt by cart traffic.
When they brought in irrigation these sandy areas were replaced by formalized, consistent bermuda rough.
I will say Palmetto was virtually ignored at that time by people in the Augusta area, and considered in poor condition.
Sadly many of the other design changes  made around that time weren't so great either.

[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.

I would encourage you to start or purchase your own course and implement all the changes in playing conditions and maintenance practices you are advocating. I will be happy to support your course. But if you aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is, then this is just wishful thinking, unfortunately.

Why on Earth would I do that before the market is ready for it? Again, you're talking about markets, not turf. I'm talking about what works best for golf and, as I said before, how you translate that to the mainstream. And of course it's wishful thinking. It's about having a belief and being prepared to stick your neck above the parapet to say what goes against the grain for many. I'll say this and no doubt somebody will miss the point and tell me I'm talking about high end golf but when Tom Doak was disagreeing with the acceptance of what I'll broadly call 'the artificial' back in the 80's it was equally wishful thinking. Thank god he was prepared to remain sceptical about some of the perceived wisdom that was flying about.

The whole point, as you've already testified to, is that what gets wrapped up in 'the climate won't allow it' is actually just 'the people won't buy it.' Please, let's not confuse the two. There are enough salesmen out there that would love for you to believe that the planet was one big desert before the sprinkler was invented. Obviously that isn't true.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,


Jim Arthur was a man of his time. He offered a simple no nonsense approach to turf grass maintenance which though not everyones cup of tea certainly worked. I too do not hold with everything he said but his basics were sound but I suspect that were he still alive today he would have altered some of them to reflect new understanding. The havoc caused was not due to JA but rather others either half heartedly implementing his recommendations or actively ensuring they failed.

As for Martyn Jones and George Shiels I too think that heavy irrigation occasionally rather than a little often is much better but do not think heavy coring is the way to go but rather regular spiking and slitting to various depths along with micro tining (full)

I have only the most basic grasp of warm season turf grass maintenance and were I to sit with a group of supers talking about it's maintenance I am sure I like you would feel somewhat lost. However, this does not make them any better or worse than their UK counterparts.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Paul - I don't know if this is what the vast majority of UK clubs do or not but certainly at the Players Club I let the headman decide when and how much to water. We talk about it and want to put on least possible but I am very aware that on a hot day 25C upwards dry patch and possible hydrophobic situations can develop quickly, at 30C this can happen within the day.(BTW wearing sunglasses can spot early signs of drying out).
We have a full irrigation system on tees, greens and fairways, the greens are 80% sand with three layers ie the old style USGA spec. At two of our other clubs neither has pop ups, so water is rarely applied. There condition is crap and we are upgrading them as without good quality greens the marketability is very limited, this is Greys Greens, very near Huntercombe. I am still unsure about installing Irrigation on the fairways.

I think UK has moved on enough now that most clubs dont bug the headman too much if they see him getting it largely right. A good percentage of clubs would also work with an agronomist or advisor that is the buffer between the two. The Agronomist or adviser is usually a good educater of the greenkeeper and usually are quite friendly, more likely to be on the greenkeepers side.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

Your explanation has pretty much summed up my thinking that you are far from the norm. For a start, you talk about it with the crew! I won't name any names but, trust me, I am familiar with both the club mangers and greenkeepers at one of your proprietary competitors. Safe to say that their knowledge is not what your is. Managers from other industries and gardeners do not make for a particularly well educated staff. I kid you not, a friend of mine from a Pro Shop recently reported back to me that one of the newer members of staff, who had been asked to do something with the greens, appeared in the shop and said, no word of a lie:

"The greens, they're the bits with the flags in aren't they?"

But I digress.  

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,


Jim Arthur was a man of his time. He offered a simple no nonsense approach to turf grass maintenance which though not everyones cup of tea certainly worked. I too do not hold with everything he said but his basics were sound but I suspect that were he still alive today he would have altered some of them to reflect new understanding. The havoc caused was not due to JA but rather others either half heartedly implementing his recommendations or actively ensuring they failed.

As for Martyn Jones and George Shiels I too think that heavy irrigation occasionally rather than a little often is much better but do not think heavy coring is the way to go but rather regular spiking and slitting to various depths along with micro tining (full)

I have only the most basic grasp of warm season turf grass maintenance and were I to sit with a group of supers talking about it's maintenance I am sure I like you would feel somewhat lost. However, this does not make them any better or worse than their UK counterparts.

Jon

I think Jim Arthur had the right ideas up to 1975. Modern golf has moved even further away from his method, many clubs cut inside 3mm now. The idea of FIVE YEARS OF HELL  to starve out poa never really worked anyway as soon as it became damp, back in came the meadow grass. Heavy coring as a soil exchange is an aggressive way of removing thatch and introducing a better growing medium, but the rights and wrongs of various aerfication methods is chapters and chapters.
I know when I am beat Jon and I can assure you those American greenkeepers knew more than me, it drove me want to learn more.
Seperate Question to you and Paul do you have Dr James Beard's book? That too me is a good bible.

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

Re Dr. Beard, you must have forgotten that you're asking a naive idealist.   My golf library is all Mackenzie et al.

But you raise a point which I've thought about before now. Does the very pursuit of turf knowledge not inevitably create a push towards turf which is perceived as perfect but actually too healthy for golf? Has any of this science led to the creation of turf which is skinny, brown and, to the untrained eye, close to death? Again, your area rather than mine so it's not a loaded question.

[BHoover]

Jason,

No one is blaming your supers. Those guys produce the product they are told to produce. Again, this conversation began by identifying what works best, not what sells best. And if you read back through the my posts you'll see that I was very specific about environmental, rather than market factors. Focusing on environment, Brian was able to confirm for me that his course existed long before the widespread use of sprinklers, hence his course was able to exist without such 'technology.'  

Paul, I also told you that my course, unlike most others in Ohio, is built on sand. So achieving firm and fast conditions is relatively easy, depending on weather conditions. But that is not the case throughout most of the Midwest. We can continud this argument indefinitely but it seems pointless. I agree with you (except about going back to green conditions and speeds from 1900) that it's preferable to playing golf in "proper" conditions. But if it was that easy (as you seem to suggest), it presumably would already be happening everywhere.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Adrian,

Re Dr. Beard, you must have forgotten that you're asking a naive idealist.   My golf library is all Mackenzie et al.

But you raise a point which I've thought about before now. Does the very pursuit of turf knowledge not inevitably create a push towards turf which is perceived as perfect but actually too healthy for golf? Has any of this science led to the creation of turf which is skinny, brown and, to the untrained eye, close to death? Again, your area rather than mine so it's not a loaded question.

To be totally honest your 'uptopia' is perfect for the UK and I am well behind it but it is just not practical in other areas of the world. I think most UK people do think green is good but I think a good percentage like it pale, the problem we have with here is annual meadow grass is the most aggressive for 80% of the time, thriving in our sub 55F dampy climate. If we all had perfect swards of fescue from the start we could probably keep them. It is hard to kill grass by doing nothing in the UK because we rarely go 30 days without water. Mark Chaplin might be able to add more re the South East climate as they can probably get near real drout. If it gets dry raising the height of cut is the default stage 1 do. Raising the height on greens = slow greens = not good. The demand from the golfer that fast greens are better is the real dilema. I like 4.5mm in the summer and 6.5 in the winter, I am 54 it is what I learned most clubs take it to 3mm in the summer, we do occasionally most of the time we are probably 3.75mm because that's where my headman feels comfortable, we have a lot of days that are important with competitions and society days and not so many times where we can rest.
As a rough guess I think we had our sprinklers on the greens for 50 days this year. I think we switched the fairway sprinklers on 12 times, that you could say "is it worth having them". It gives back up to keep them alive just incase our fairways can go brown pretty quick but we like them a very pale green and we practice evrything the Jim Arthur way for our fairways.

Buy Dr Beards book...Practical Greenkeeping. I think you will enjoy it as a good reference book and you can read just two or three relevant pages at a time on certain subjects.

[Jason Thurman]

Firm and fast turf isn't nearly the acquired taste that some of GCA acts like it is. Almost every golfer I know prefers fast and firm over soft and slow (I've actually done a poll just for fun, and it wasn't close).

So you're right, Paul, that the benefits of "proper golf" are obvious. They just aren't as easy to attain in a lot of parts of the world as they are in your own. I don't hear you proposing any real solutions for that, other than that we should all be telling people how much fun it is to play in fast and firm conditions. Duly noted.

[Paul Gray]

Jason,

No one is blaming your supers. Those guys produce the product they are told to produce. Again, this conversation began by identifying what works best, not what sells best. And if you read back through the my posts you'll see that I was very specific about environmental, rather than market factors. Focusing on environment, Brian was able to confirm for me that his course existed long before the widespread use of sprinklers, hence his course was able to exist without such 'technology.'  

Paul, I also told you that my course, unlike most others in Ohio, is built on sand. So achieving firm and fast conditions is relatively easy, depending on weather conditions. But that is not the case throughout most of the Midwest. We can continud this argument indefinitely but it seems pointless. I agree with you (except about going back to green conditions and speeds from 1900) that it's preferable to playing golf in "proper" conditions. But if it was that easy (as you seem to suggest), it presumably would already be happening everywhere.

Why would it presumably be happening? There's currently a limited market for it because brown is perceived as bad so why would it be happening? If you end up with conditions which you might think were better you'd quite possibly end up with less members. That's hardly a recipe for change. You can only have change when mindsets allow it. 

The game is in a mess because style became far more important than substance long ago and costs hits the roof. Middle of the road clubs reaching for the budgetary sky has created a massive problem in which each club tries to keep up with the neighbours and the result is we end up with threads on here about the game dying because Club X can't attract 600 members at a silly price, that being the minimum amount required to keep the fertiliser salesmen suitably well heeled. It's a brave man (or woman) that cuts the budget to a level which would only require 300 members in order to break even and then crosses his or her fingers in the hope that 300 members will want to stay. 

[Paul Gray]

Firm and fast turf isn't nearly the acquired taste that some of GCA acts like it is. Almost every golfer I know prefers fast and firm over soft and slow (I've actually done a poll just for fun, and it wasn't close).

So you're right, Paul, that the benefits of "proper golf" are obvious. They just aren't as easy to attain in a lot of parts of the world as they are in your own. I don't hear you proposing any real solutions for that, other than that we should all be telling people how much fun it is to play in fast and firm conditions. Duly noted.

But Jason, what happened before the sprinklers? Was there no golf in America?

I'm the first to concede that I'm no agronomist and you're better discussing specifics with the likes of Joe but at some point you have to acknowledge that golf in the U.S is not a by-product of the water sprinkler. It was there before that and, if water restrictions become ever more pertinent, courses will be there regardless. 

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

As you know I'm down at Hayling.

1) Apparently the turf can't survive without irrigation.
2) It survived for over 100 years pre irrigation.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that only one of those statements can be right.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Adrian,

Re Dr. Beard, you must have forgotten that you're asking a naive idealist.   My golf library is all Mackenzie et al.

But you raise a point which I've thought about before now. Does the very pursuit of turf knowledge not inevitably create a push towards turf which is perceived as perfect but actually too healthy for golf? Has any of this science led to the creation of turf which is skinny, brown and, to the untrained eye, close to death? Again, your area rather than mine so it's not a loaded question.

One of the advantages of a dense sward of turf (i.e. irrigated) is it provides little room for invasive species (dandelion/thistle/etc.)  I know of no golfer who would tolerate playing off dandelion/clover fairways regardless of firmness.  But I do agree with you in that more research should be done on what level of stress is optimal for a a firm but "dense enough" turf per grass type.  You read about "drought tolerance" in the literature for specific turfgrass varietals, but it's viewed as more of a nuisance than an optimization problem.  I would like to see studies on how far and for how long you can push certain grass types before they go dormant and/or die, and how quickly you can bring them back if you do go too far.  But research takes money, and none of the vested business interests really benefit from such studies.  Maybe the irrigation companies could start sponsoring such firmness studies as a incentive for more efficient irrigation systems?  Just a theory.

[Ryan Coles]

Adrian,


Jim Arthur was a man of his time. He offered a simple no nonsense approach to turf grass maintenance which though not everyones cup of tea certainly worked. I too do not hold with everything he said but his basics were sound but I suspect that were he still alive today he would have altered some of them to reflect new understanding. The havoc caused was not due to JA but rather others either half heartedly implementing his recommendations or actively ensuring they failed.

As for Martyn Jones and George Shiels I too think that heavy irrigation occasionally rather than a little often is much better but do not think heavy coring is the way to go but rather regular spiking and slitting to various depths along with micro tining (full)

I have only the most basic grasp of warm season turf grass maintenance and were I to sit with a group of supers talking about it's maintenance I am sure I like you would feel somewhat lost. However, this does not make them any better or worse than their UK counterparts.

Jon

Jon

What specifically have you got against coring/replacing?

Lets say you take over push up clay greens that are soft, full of thatch virtually all poa. Do you not have to be more aggressive for a few years than what you prescribe above?

We've hired the Graden scarifier/injector before and probably will again next autumn. (Courses in the states probably have their own or equivalent) and it has really benefitted.

I don't think we'd be where we've got to with out an aggressive programme of organic matter removal.

[Ryan Coles]

Adrian,

Re Dr. Beard, you must have forgotten that you're asking a naive idealist.   My golf library is all Mackenzie et al.

But you raise a point which I've thought about before now. Does the very pursuit of turf knowledge not inevitably create a push towards turf which is perceived as perfect but actually too healthy for golf? Has any of this science led to the creation of turf which is skinny, brown and, to the untrained eye, close to death? Again, your area rather than mine so it's not a loaded question.

To be totally honest your 'uptopia' is perfect for the UK and I am well behind it but it is just not practical in other areas of the world. I think most UK people do think green is good but I think a good percentage like it pale, the problem we have with here is annual meadow grass is the most aggressive for 80% of the time, thriving in our sub 55F dampy climate. If we all had perfect swards of fescue from the start we could probably keep them. It is hard to kill grass by doing nothing in the UK because we rarely go 30 days without water. Mark Chaplin might be able to add more re the South East climate as they can probably get near real drout. If it gets dry raising the height of cut is the default stage 1 do. Raising the height on greens = slow greens = not good. The demand from the golfer that fast greens are better is the real dilema. I like 4.5mm in the summer and 6.5 in the winter, I am 54 it is what I learned most clubs take it to 3mm in the summer, we do occasionally most of the time we are probably 3.75mm because that's where my headman feels comfortable, we have a lot of days that are important with competitions and society days and not so many times where we can rest.
As a rough guess I think we had our sprinklers on the greens for 50 days this year. I think we switched the fairway sprinklers on 12 times, that you could say "is it worth having them". It gives back up to keep them alive just incase our fairways can go brown pretty quick but we like them a very pale green and we practice evrything the Jim Arthur way for our fairways.

Buy Dr Beards book...Practical Greenkeeping. I think you will enjoy it as a good reference book and you can read just two or three relevant pages at a time on certain subjects.

Practical Greenkeeping is Jim Arthur's title. Dr Beard has several. Is it 'Turf Management for Golf Courses"? I think I'll order it.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Yes thats right my mistake. Turf Management is the one. avoid Science and Culture its a bit too deep and more USA than UK.

[Don Mahaffey]

A question: Has anyone here played on un-irrigated bermudagrass mowed at fairway height? By un-irrigated, I mean just that; fairways that had zero sprinklers/ couplers? I'm just curious as I am questioning some of the blanket statements about grass types that get perpetuated here. I also understand that certain standards exist for what is deemed acceptable, so don't take the question as an offensive attack as I would rather have a fact-based discussion. If it leads to one person, somewhere,, who wants to take steps to create a golfing environment that is more fun, less reliant, less expensive, etc, then the discussion is worth having.

Joe

Joe,
the 9 hole course in the small town I live in has no fwy irrigation and only couplers at the greens.
I play there 10 times a year or so and the fwys are never talked about. Its always the the greens that seem to spur either positive or negative comments. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()