With the ever-accruing body of knowledge growing, does "Lush" have any role?

[V. Kmetz]

Hiya,


Just wondering out loud, if given the emerging wisdoms and realities, do "Lush," "course beautiful" "Augusta-Muirfield" - style conditions have any place in what constitutes interesting or stimulating architecture any more, (or for the immediate future)?


I mean it seems with economic & maintenance & sustainability pressures (and responses), as well as the desires of the golfing-paying-watching-caring public, I'm left to consider if the idea of any cool, green, juicy uniform grass cut into rows or diamonds or stripes is disqualifying under emerging standards...


Will it ever be acceptable to have a "mix" of conditions -"this hole is this way, these four are like that, that stretch is dusty, Fisher-Island like, but then the next three holes are quite trim and manicured..."


Of course I'm the moron meathead who thinks it would be OK to have a course's 18 greens run at a few different speeds (from 6 - 10), so please be gentle with my hair-brained questions or notions...


cheers


vk

[Paul Gray]

V,


I suspect the work of a guy like Peter Dye will get thrown away, most unfortunately, when the worm has completely turned. People struggle with concepts any more complicated than 'brown good, green bad' or visa versa.


So there is certainly a place for courses designed to be green but the fact that it takes a genius to produce genuinely fascinating strategy on lush and green courses means the good 5% will be thrown out with the other 95%. I say that with zero personal experience of Dye courses so am happy to take the forthcoming abuse.  [size=78%] [/size]

[Colin Macqueen]

[color=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]VK,[/color]
My somewhat relatively uninformed response to your question re "Will it ever be acceptable to have a "mix" of conditions.." Is that yes it will/is.


At the golf club I belong to there is no backlash when the drought conditions dictate that areas in front of the tees and on the periphery of the fairways become dry, dusty and unkempt (no pun intended!). I think that the realities of water shortages are well and truly understood by the golfing fraternity in Oz so in that sense we golfers Downunder may be ahead of the curve.


Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

VKmetz:


Many famous architects of the previous generations were lushes.


I don't know about the present day.

[Colin Macqueen]

Indeed, indeed!  Very good Tom....very good.


Cheers Colin

[Matt Wharton]

Earlier this year, as the golf course began to slowly emerge from winter dormancy, it became apparent some turf did not survive.  Severely shaded areas, north facing slopes, and areas enduring high cart traffic succumbed to winter injury.  These areas were repaired with new sod, but as warm temperatures finally arrived in early May the rains stopped.  We endured the driest summer in at least a decade and the golf course certainly "looked" worse for wear.  Turf was thin and off color, the ground rock hard, and tee shots would bound down the fairway like shot from a cannon.  "Firm and fast" was the rule of the day and the golf course resembled a playing field on the verge of catching fire.  In late September the dominant weather patterns changed and we began to receive much needed rain in the region.  Over the course of late September and early October more rain (over 7 inches) fell than all of May, June, July, and August combined.  The golf course soaked up nearly every drop and literally overnight became a lush, green oasis.  The comments I have received from the membership since this transformation leaves me believing the number of individuals in the U.S. embracing the "firm and fast" and/or "brown is good" ideals is a minority. 

[Tom_Doak]

Matt:


You are undoubtedly correct that golfers prefer green conditions to brown.


However, letting a bunch of people who don't understand the big picture make these decisions by who talks the loudest, is often a disaster for the world as a whole.


[source:  Washington, D.C.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

V,

I suspect the work of a guy like Peter Dye will get thrown away, most unfortunately, when the worm has completely turned. People struggle with concepts any more complicated than 'brown good, green bad' or visa versa.

[size=78%] [/size]

Any extravagance will probably be thrown out, since the $$$ of golf won't return to opulence for 60 years, if then.  Every feature will be judged as whether it is worth the XXX per month to maintain it.

That will include, IMHO, all perimeter mounding around fairways, where the mix of needing more water at the edge of the irrigation system has never been a very efficient combo.  I could see many courses making a few bucks by  selling their dirt of for nearby road projects, and getting back to more level ground.

Water restrictions may finally get what many want, but most golfers will bemoan the results for a while.  Perhaps, eventually, it will become normal again.  I mean, I grew up with some browning in the summer and considered that normal.  So, maybe in another 50 years, it will be considered normal again, with the exceptions like Augusta recognized for what they are.

[Matt Wharton]

Matt:


You are undoubtedly correct that golfers prefer green conditions to brown.


However, letting a bunch of people who don't understand the big picture make these decisions by who talks the loudest, is often a disaster for the world as a whole.


[source:  Washington, D.C.]

Tom,

I couldn't agree more.  I like to consider myself a water miser and I always say if the course isn't playing firm and fast then Mother Nature is to blame.  Through the years I have diligently explained what I believe to be the difference between watering for turf needs versus watering for aesthetics, and truly value the resource I have at my disposal.  So far I have been blessed to be associated with a club that values my philosophies and the relationship between my style of turf management and playing conditions.

[Paul Gray]

Matt:


You are undoubtedly correct that golfers prefer green conditions to brown.


However, letting a bunch of people who don't understand the big picture make these decisions by who talks the loudest, is often a disaster for the world as a whole.


[source:  Washington, D.C.]

Great quote. To the point and bang on the money.