Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Matt_Ward on July 27, 2005, 08:30:27 PM
-
I have to say after visiting a number of golf courses in the greater Northeast it frankly disturbs me -- check that -- pisses me off that so many courses are unbelievably OVERWATERED.
In many of the cases you have classic designed courses that are as slow as possible. Tee shots routinely hit the ground and bounce a scant few yards. Approaches create moon shaped craters when landing.
Candidly, the situation boils down to just two reasons why ...
1). The superintendent is determined to keep the course "green" because he / she knows the limited understanding of the membership and how the "appearance" of green turf will keep the masses (cows) happy. Watering the course to death is far easier than taking the course and having a few brown spots which can be seen through ignorant eyes as blemishes that need correction ASAP.
2). The superintendent is told to keep the course watered by the people in charge at the facility and simply obliges because of a desire to not "rock the boat." The superintendent knows full well that "education" is a long and tiring process and when one is getting paid every two weeks why take the risk in trying to educate people when the "safe play" is simply dump more water on the ground.
Despite all the articles and talk of "firm and fast" turf -- I don't see major headway among the more noted clubs in the Northeast. I'm not saying this is an issue at say 99.99% of the clubs but for people to believe that clubs are moving faster and faster to less water is not happening anywhere near the frequency one might believe.
I would only hope that clubs would understand the twin benefits in having courses play far more strategic / challenging and the PR gain they get from demonstrating that they are not pumping tons of water on their manicured acreas that few will ever have the hope in playing and in behaving like good neighbors to the masses who don't see golf as being really environmentally sensitive.
-
Matt:
I spoke to Michael Pascucci today and he says (and Jim Urbina confirms) that Sebonack is hard as a rock right now, with balls rolling forty yards in the fairways -- and they're still growing it in.
Hats off to the superintendent, Garret Bodington, for that. If he keeps it up, he won't have to water the crap out of it when he gets a heat wave three summers from now. But that's the key, you have to wean the grass off water early. If you haven't done so, turning off the water in a heat wave like this is career suicide.
-
Tom:
Agreed:
But the continued information on the benefits of less water is not penetrating the very clubs in the Northeast that should be the leaders in the field.
I mean I have played quite a few of them (I'll hold back the specific names because I don't want to embarrass them) where the air game is simply de rigeur. There is NO -- ZERO --NADA ground game.
I am aware of the job security issues all superintendents operate under but frankly I will be marking down a number of these courses when ratings are forthcoming.
It's clear a number of clubs understand the tree explosion from years past and are doing something about it. The water issue seems to be more persistent and entrenched.
-
Matt
on Mike Clayton's web-site, there is an excellent article on the pitfalls of overwatering written by John Sloan, one of the founders of Clayton Golf design and a Course Supt of experience.
We have attempted to adopt this approach since October 2004, and have recently posted this article at our club to further explain our actions, as the membership had trouble accepting a lighter shade of green this summer/autumn during an extended drought, in particular on the edges of fairways where irrigation was more limited. However, the improvement going into winter (when it is wet) has been significant. (Note, I am in Australia, so we are in our wet, mild winter period now. We also use couch/bermuda fairways, not bent/poa). The degree of summer/autumn run was also challenging (read difficult) for some of our members to deal with. We have more work to go.
Go to www.claytongolf.com.au and check the articles page. The article is about 'Overwatering - The No. 1 Pitfall in Golf', or similar.
-
I can't speak to elite private clubs but among golfers in general there is an impression that good courses are very green (every day of the year if possible) and poor courses are light green, gold or brown. Similarly, good courses are expected to have lush grass and seeing the ball running or bouncing is associated with a municipal course or a private course with a small maintenance budget.
I have the disadvantage of speaking as a bogey golfer who doesn't hit the ball very high or very far but when I opine that a particular course might be more fun with firmer fairways it is taken as complaint from a poor player hoping for extra distance from the run of the ball. In the mind of most players I meet, good players hit the ball high and stop it right where it lands. Firm greens are considered a sign of a strong course because they test the players ability to hit it high and spin it but firm fairways are seen as a crutch for the weaker player. "Real men" hit it far enough not to need it to roll and good golf is target golf.
I don't which is the chicken and which is the egg but at this point in time it would seem an uphill battle to break that cycle of beliefs among the bulk of US golfers.
-
Matt:
How about the guys in carts who play early and dig up the coursewith their tires or after a heavy rain, they destroy the fairways >:(
-
It's not limited to the Northeast. I played Talking Stick North at the end of June and it was a little on the wet/soft side. I guess they don't have much of a choice in the desert when the temps are 100+ week after week.
-
Cary,
At our course it is the maintenance equipment which does the damage.
-
Matt,
check out New Haven, it is 180 degrees different in one scant year under Mr Burrows......he is getting rid of the undesirable grasses and has stopped over-watering the fairways......30 to 40 yards roll is the norm....
-
Matt:
How about the guys in carts who play early and dig up the coursewith their tires or after a heavy rain, they destroy the fairways >:(
Cary,
If those are the conditions, carts shouldn't be allowed on the golf course.
This is one of the reasons that clubs give for building start to finish cart paths, making the course available when it's very wet.
Tom Doak,
What member or faction of members are going to argue with Mike Pascucci ?
It's much harder to accomplish in a member owned club.[/color]
-
Tom,
Two important factors that contribute to the conditions being discussed that aren't at Sebonack...yet:
1) Poa
2) Thatch
Those two things contribute, but can be kept at bay with good water management.
Joe
-
Let me also highlight the fact that the situation I originally mentioned is not home to just the Northeast. I am frankly amazed at so many courses in "dry" areas of the USA that overwater on a frequent basis.
One of my favorite layouts but one I feel is set-up always incorrectly because of water overusage is the South Course at UNM in Albuquerque. The Red Lawrence design is well done and the terrain a joy to behold.
Unfortunately --
The turf is wet to the point that you pump water from your shoes on a number of occasions. You even make footprints on a few of the tees and moon size craters are the norm for ball marks.
The course gets little rain from the sky and while watering is necessary to keep grass alive it's beyond me how this NM course and a few others go the route of drenching turf.
Like I said before -- either the superintendent doesn't have a clue on the subject and opts for the easier water "at all costs" philosophy or the club orders the superintendent to keep the layout green at all times.
I'll say this again -- the tree issue was a much easier one to overcome -- the water one is not going away as fast and as a result I will be placing more emphasis on this when reviewing facilities.
-
Matt- thanks for raising what is perhaps my biggest pet peeve about the game of golf and one which I have posted since I joined GCA in January
it's really ridiculous that this is often done "just to make the course a pretty green"...this is the so-called "Augusta National "Syndrome ..hopefully in the future the next generations of golfers won't "demand" this...I just don't understand how different shades of colors on courses isn't more appealing than wall to wall green
and everybody wants to hit the ball farther; if we stop making fairways sopping wet that will help...I believe it was Alice Dye who has stated that women golfers used to get far more roll back in the 60's because this practice didn't occur back then
Pat referred to one great possible solution: having private clubs that are run by one man insure that this practce isn't practiced
finally, if a course is using drinkable water for this practice, they might be forced to cut back their usage in the future as our population continues to grow along with the demand for drinking water
rant over
-
I think another factor as to why this occurs is that many of the new courses today are designed so that the only way to get your ball on the green is to fly it there. If the course does not allow for the ground game then players will be very upset if the greens are very firm and they have no choice but to fly the ball onto the green.
-
Don't underestimate the factors cited by Joe. Some greenkeepers are using the drought as a means of eradicating some of their poa while trying to expand the bent coverage. This process takes some time and may result in some spotty conditions in the short run. Thatch can be a major problem in older courses. If there is a large thatch layer, it acts like a subsurface sponge. This limits root penetration and requires that the thatch layer be kept wet during extreme temperatures. Since it is so close to the surface, the course plays wet. Aggressive dethatching can take quite awhile on older courses.
-
We are as wet as can be in lower Fairfield County because of:
Weather - Hazy, Hot and Humid
Safety - Green is good, right?!?!?
Excellent Drainage - Huh?
Our course is built upon an old dairy farm with 4+' of top-soil in most places. When we water, it just goes right down the drainage, so we excessively water to keep things green.
Two questions to the board:
1) To a very novice in agronomy, what role does water play vs. Anthracnose?
2) Does begging for firm and fast conditions beget the argument, "The balls flying too far". I mean four of the par 4's were reachable at TOC during the Open Champ. Should we be only keeping the greens F&F and slow the fairways down?
I await your replies>
JWK
-
Matt Ward,
You can't overlook the fact that we had a WET spring, followed by 90 to 100 degree temperatures.
Everybody was green in the spring.
A few years ago I was playing Newport and it was greener than any golf course I ever played, and they don't have a wall to wall irrigation system.
So, let's not look at this by ignoring Mother Nature.
-
Pat Mucci:
Understood -- but Pat please let's try to move this along beyond the same "let's find any excuse we can" that keeps the courses from being more than just soaking weat most of the time.
I've played a very reasonable sampling of courses throughout the Northeast this year and last and the MO is fairly similar. The courses with the best architecture routinely see fit to wet them down so that green grass is the first consideration.
I'm not advocating that no water be applied but when I see sprinklers firing away with a liberal use of water and then you have fairways that are as thick as carpets something is clearly amiss.
Conditioning needs to be weighed by which it will be assessed on how the design elements are "enhanced" through the daily upkeep practices used by that club.
I'll say this again so that there's no misinterpretation -- I'm not suggesting no water but considerably less than what is being used now at too many private clubs and even a number of the CCFAD's. Unfortunately, the water constituency has more followers than the tree-huggers.
-
From Brett Hutto: "When you say you want firm greens, you're perceived as a good player who can spin the ball who just wants an advantage over your opponents who can't."
A blinding glimpse of the obvious! ;)
It is almost as good as the bartenders at O'Hare:
"Sir, would like a double for a $1 extra?"
I have yet to hear a patron come back and say:
"No thanks. I'd rather pay full price for my second drink!"
In this case, Brett and Shivas are right!!!
JWK
-
Two questions to the board:
1) To a very novice in agronomy, what role does water play vs. Anthracnose?
I await your replies>
JWK
To a fellow James
Bruce Clark at Rutgers University has an excellent article on Anthracnose. He visited Australia and spoke at the Course Supt Conference a year ago.
We had a bad outbreak on the poa element of 6 older greens 18 months ago (we had consecutive days of 43 degrees, or about 110 farenheit), and on 2 greens last year. I hope we avoid it next year. We will see.
the web address for the article is
http://www.metgcsa.org/research/rutgers_anthracnose.asp
James W. Bennett ;) (William is the middle name)
-
By the way, as with New Haven CC, drying out a course can lead to significant turf loss when there is a predominance of Poa annua and the bentgrasess and fescues have not been fully or more extensively established. The transition phase is very dicey, in part because members get upset, and also because you don't have enough deep-rooting, cool season grasses that can readily withstand summer conditions. That helps explain the superintendent's reticence, namely that he might properly understand that on older courses with much Poa annua, transitioning is very complicated.
I agree, too many courses are overwatered, and too many clubs take the wrong approach. But grass types have a lot to do with this, as do inadequate irrigatio systems w/o adequate coverage. Ironically, you need a lot of heads on a multi-row basis in order to be able to use less water, and to do so more efficiently. Many overwatered courses are the product of having an inadequate irrigation systems where you have to thriow a lot of water down in order to get some to stick, esp. on marginal areas.
The only way to dry out a course is to tolerate some turf loss while promoting stronger grasses than can thrive under lean conditions. That requries turf renovation and improved irrigation.
By the way, Sebonack is real firm and the ball did roll out there.
-
Brad: Would you then say that it is unrealistic in the Middle Atlantic area to expect firm greens where they are primarily Poa annua? You also said there could be significant turf loss, would that mean starting from scratch and resodding or reseeding, or does it mean that the grasses would be dormant and would recover when the temperatures moderate in the Fall?
-
Jerry, if I start getting too agronomic I'll drown. All I mean is that fairways are really tough to firm up when they don't have a lot of bent, as are greens. You need a lot of air movement (i.e. tree removal), deep & infrequent rather than frequent watering. You're also, with predominantly Poa greens, better off focusing on rolling and topdressing for firmness and smoothness rather than reduced cutting heights for speed. Once you get below 1/8 inch with Poa in a parkland setting you are running serious risks of injury and anthracnose.
-
By the way, as with New Haven CC, drying out a course can lead to significnt turf loss when there is a predominance of Poa annua and the bentgrasess and fescues have not been fully or more extensivewly established. The transition phase is very dicey, in part because members get upset, and also because you don't have enough deep-rooting, cool season grasses that can readily withstand summer conditions. That helps explain the superintendent's reticence, namely that he might properly understand that on older courses with much Poa annua, transitioning is very complicated.
I agree, too many courses are ovetwatered, and too many clubs take the wrong approach. But grass types have a lot to do with this, as do inadequate irrigatio systems w/o adequate coverage. Ironically, you need a lot of heads on a multi-row basis in order to be able to use less water, and to do so more efficiently. Many overwatered courses are the product of having an inadequate irrigation systems where you have to thriow a lot of water down in order to get some to stick, esp. on marginal areas.
The only way to dry out a course is to tolerate some turf loss while promoting stronger grasses than can thrive under lean conditions. That requries turf renovation and improved irrigation.
By the way, Sebonack is real firm and the ball did roll out there.
That is a superb analysis of turf problems all over the globe. The only thing you might have forgotten Brad is 'improved irrigation and drainage'
Brian
-
Like I said before -- either the superintendent doesn't have a clue on the subject and opts for the easier water "at all costs" philosophy or the club orders the superintendent to keep the layout green at all times.
Don't forget about the courses whose clientel predominately hit fairway woods from as close as 160 yards. Getting a ball to stop on a green from this type of customer is essential to keeping that customer.
-
Adam -
You got that right.
I play with some older gentlemen who are perfectly capable in hitting a 4 iron, but they go to their rescue clubs like Linus needs his blanket. They hit the front of the green on a par 3 and roll off of the back for the 100th time, and they act as if the golf course screwed them!
JWK
-
In my mind whenever a subject like this of over-irrigated vs firm is dicussed on here a distinction should always be made between "through the green" and the green surfaces themselves. If that distinction is not made it seems most think the subject is only about the greens themselves.
The primary concentration of reestablishing firm and fast conditions on golf courses should first be in the "through the green" area, in my opinion.
-
Guys, guys, guys ...
C'mon -- the places I am talking about are taking CONSCIOUS ACTIONS to keep the ground moist 99.99% of the time.
These are the same places with superb pedigrees and first rate designs -- however -- the conditioning is simply thrown out the window with the love affair with constant overwatering.
There is no ground game option.
I don't deny that certain rationalities can be applied but after a while the excuse book runs thin and it becomesd very clear as I said before -- the tree huggers were an easy lot to deal with compared to the make-up artists who see green grass and water as the first among all equals.
Ignorance / stupidity on this subject will not come around fast or even move much at all since so many clubs are enamored with the outcome of "how they look" rather than "how they play."
-
Matt,
You assume that the "ground game option" is a benefit to be traded off against a less green and less lush look. My point earlier this week is that most good players nowadays (and good players are the squeaking wheels that most often get greased in my experience) consider what you call "ground game option" to be another name for a weak-ass old guy's golf game.
For some influential golfers, any course that lets you bounce or roll an approach is a poor golf course is a poor golf course by definition.
-
What Brad said is dead on. I would only add that there is much more to it than just turning off the irrigation system. The Club and Members need to accept a complete program of aggressive cultural practices that will promote the deeply rooting grasses. Two, three and four core aerations may be required to open the soil, remove thatch and get conditions ripe for change.
If you encounter a course that is kept wet with irrigation I'll bet the Super is dealing with a short root system. I'll also bet that the Super is directed to not disturb the course during the season. You can't get it done like this. Over the long haul you will lose ground.
There was mention about the weather this spring and then the quick transition into summer. This is accurate but now consider the last two seasons in the NE. Generally the last two years were wetter and cooler than normal. The grass grew more than normal and more thatch was created. The soil was wetter and roots got shorter and Poa annua was favored over bentgrass. It probably makes sense that whatever the normal aeration schedule was it should have been increased and additional work performed to offset the additional growth and thatch accumulation. I wonder how many Superintendents were able to do this and how many had their hands tied by golf schedules and the resistance to aeration from Members. Money could have been a factor as well. Extra work may require money not in the original budget plan and with rounds down due to weather already how many places wanted to disrupt play further?
I am with everone who wants a firm and fast course. I hate "splat golf" but most of us in the NE don't have the soils to overcome what Mother Nature can give us all the time. It take team work and a compehensive plan of atack to set your course up to be kept as dry as possible when you are in controll. Maintenance Standards and Objectives should be in writting. The Superintendent and Green Committee need to adopt this plan and promote it to the general Membership.
-
Shivas,
I don't know if we see things exactly the same way, but I do think Brent's comments capture the feeling many people have about "firm and fast".
Here in the States, I've met very few people who enjoy the "ground game".
And "brown"? Forget it. Lush green is far better!
Whistling Straits, by the way, provided some of my most enjoyable moments playing the ball along the ground. On #13, I had about 120 yards to the green. Instead of going with a wedge, I hit seven iron.....maybe fifty yards.......and then got to watch the ball tumble the rest of the way......
.......it seemed to take forever.......leading me to feel I didn't deserve to make the birdie putt because I already had so much fun on the hole!
-
SBR's analysis is very accurate, in my opinion. Probably the bad news for those courses and clubs that're into an over-irrigated no ground game process and mentality is that to get their courses back to firmer and faster and the reestablishing of the ground game option, is, unfortunately, often not the simplest process once you've been down the wrong road too long. Unfortunately just turning off the water is not the only thing that needs to be done. Grass is a living thing and like all living things it takes time and effort to reacclimate it. As SBR said the key is to get those roots down a whole lot deeper than the roots are on agronomy that's been over-irrigated for years. And sometimes that means real expense remediating soil conditions (compaction, hydrophobia etc) so the roots and water can get deep and perch deep. Basically that's the only way consistently firm and fast conditions can be reestablished.
If your super tells you the only way to establish firm and fast conditions "through the green" is to spend twice as much cutting the fairways twice as much tell him to zip it because I guarantee you he's lying to you through his teeth because he thinks you don't know what's going on here which you probably don't! ;)
See the thread on "Nature's Way" and the "Pa Am at Huntingdon Valley" for more and complete info on this subject. What HVGC did years ago is the only way any other club can get all the way down this road to consistently firm and fast conditions.
I really do hope that HVGC eventually does get the recognition for starting this on their own so long ago that so many thought was so odd and radical. There was no one out there back then to help them---they developed their processes all by themselves.
As Tom Doak said there's always been courses out there that have always done what HVGC has been doing for the last decade or two but the difference in my opinion, is that HVGC is the first to actually turn things around from an over-irrigated and chemical dependent golf course and go down the right road of an organic and dry culture and process.
If any club out there that's been over-irrigated and chemical dependent for years is interested in consistently firm and fast conditions both "through the green" and on the greens, my suggestion would be to call up Huntingdon Valley G.C., Huntingdon Valley, Pa and ask them how they did it---collaborate with them both in their maintenance practices and how they sold the idea of this type of playablity to their membership.
And furthermore, if any club has some mentality amongst their better players that a soft golf course that requires only aerial shots is the best way for them to strut their talent and that a firm and fast course and a ultra functional ground game is for weak players and hackers, I definitely challenge those good players in those over-irrigated clubs out there to try their talent at HVGC. I'll guarantee them HVGC will whup the asses of those good players from soft over-irrigated courses every single day for a solid month until they finally figure out what good and complete golf is all about---eg firm and fast conditions throughout!
-
Guys, guys, guys ...
C'mon -- the places I am talking about are taking CONSCIOUS ACTIONS to keep the ground moist 99.99% of the time.
These are the same places with superb pedigrees and first rate designs -- however -- the conditioning is simply thrown out the window with the love affair with constant overwatering.
There is no ground game option.
I don't deny that certain rationalities can be applied but after a while the excuse book runs thin and it becomesd very clear as I said before -- the tree huggers were an easy lot to deal with compared to the make-up artists who see green grass and water as the first among all equals.
Ignorance / stupidity on this subject will not come around fast or even move much at all since so many clubs are enamored with the outcome of "how they look" rather than "how they play."
I couldn't agree more with you Matt. Wow. I can't believe I just wrote that. No offense, but my opinions seem to usually be the polar opposite of yours. When I worked in the Met Section two years ago it seemed that every course, barring some like Shinnecock, NGLA and other links style courses, were HEAVILY overwatered. It became obvious to me that the course looking green was more important than the course playing the way it was intended to.
Jeff F.
-
Jeff:
Glad you we can agree this time.
The Met Section is loaded with courses that are simply overwatered. I have seen a number of layouts where guys are taking racoon pelt size divots. Ditto the moon deep craters they get when hitting greens.
It's about time those who are raters see and RATE the courses for what they are -- rather than what they could become.
I for one will be lowering my overall totals for a number of metro NY/NJ areas courses to reflect the fact that the desire to have it green 24/7 has robbed those respective courses of the very character they were given when originally designed.
For the rest of you guys out there consider this -- the same people who rave about ground game options when they play across the pond are the first ones to flood their own layouts with H20.
The ignorance / stupidity these same people demonstrate concerning their own home courses is truly mind-boggling. The simgular fact is that too many clubs are enamored with green grass at all costs -- and fail to see / understand the strategic implications by what they are doing.
Like I said before -- the tree huggers issue pales when compared to the overdosing of layouts with H20.
-
While watching the Open at St. A's my very able Assistant asked why is it that during the Masters people say "Why doesn't our course look like that?" , but during an event at the birthplace of the game no one has that particular comment. Matt really nailed it quite a while ago with his "How it looks vs, how it plays" theme. Let's keep the faith and don't stop beating this drum.
-
I was thinking along the lines of what you posted, Pat: if enough people make noise about this asinine practice, maybe our efforts will bear fruit!