Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: John Kavanaugh on November 24, 2013, 12:31:49 PM
-
Is the darkest phase in the history of turf management past us? Are courses still purchasing fans?
-
I just heard a club in a northern climate discussing fans this summer.
However, fans in general should be on the decline, due to the new bermudagrasses.
-
Craziest I ever saw was a course in Ponte Vedra, Plantation Golf Club. It was a good solid course but every bent grass green was encircled on sides and rear with four or five R2D2 shaped oscillating fans. Many drops were required if you missed a green.
I can't imagine they still have bent greens, or the fans, in these days. I was last there 15 or so years ago.
I remember it was the first course where I was required to have my metal spiked shoes fitted with those newfangled "soft spikes."
-
John,
The courses that ulitize them are seeing the sucess that the fans offfer-cooler canopy and soil temps for the bentgrass. In fact, I've seen numerous Superintendents using pull behind leave blowers (buffalo blower) on greens. They dont have to pull electrical power, purchase the fan, but still get the results.
We have 80+ fans at Colonial and without them, we wouldnt have had grass. Numeros courses up the east coast or using them also...with success.
They have their place is low cut, fast greens are expected. Especially is tree removal is not an other. Several Top 25 clubs use them....and need them.
-
John,
The courses that ulitize them are seeing the sucess that the fans offfer-cooler canopy and soil temps for the bentgrass. In fact, I've seen numerous Superintendents using pull behind leave blowers (buffalo blower) on greens. They dont have to pull electrical power, purchase the fan, but still get the results.
We have 80+ fans at Colonial and without them, we wouldnt have had grass. Numeros courses up the east coast or using them also...with success.
They have their place is low cut, fast greens are expected. Especially is tree removal is not an other. Several Top 25 clubs use them....and need them.
Anthony,
How many years did Colonial have grass on their greens before fans?
-
It seems to me to be only a matter of time that golf in the climatic zones that have either hot summers or cold winters or both will be played on domed courses that allow 365/24/7 play. The only places you will be able to hear skylarks hovering 200 feet or so above your balll will be in the UK and other part of littorals Europe.......
-
John,
The courses that ulitize them are seeing the sucess that the fans offfer-cooler canopy and soil temps for the bentgrass. In fact, I've seen numerous Superintendents using pull behind leave blowers (buffalo blower) on greens. They dont have to pull electrical power, purchase the fan, but still get the results.
We have 80+ fans at Colonial and without them, we wouldnt have had grass. Numeros courses up the east coast or using them also...with success.
They have their place is low cut, fast greens are expected. Especially is tree removal is not an other. Several Top 25 clubs use them....and need them.
Anthony,
How many years did Colonial have grass on their greens before fans?
-
John,
The courses that ulitize them are seeing the sucess that the fans offfer-cooler canopy and soil temps for the bentgrass. In fact, I've seen numerous Superintendents using pull behind leave blowers (buffalo blower) on greens. They dont have to pull electrical power, purchase the fan, but still get the results.
We have 80+ fans at Colonial and without them, we wouldnt have had grass. Numeros courses up the east coast or using them also...with success.
They have their place is low cut, fast greens are expected. Especially is tree removal is not an other. Several Top 25 clubs use them....and need them.
Anthony,
How many years did Colonial have grass on their greens before fans?
Since 1936. And it died every summer. Fans give it, along with turf at Pine Valley, Kinloch, Muirfield Village, Oakmont VICTORIA National, Winged Foot, to name a few, the best chance to survive the heat and humidity. University research along with Superintendent testing prove their worth. You've always had some sort of thing against them and do not care to understand or see the benefit.
Fans are not an end all, be all to turfgrass heath. They are a tool. Just like Subair. These tools allow Superintendents that best chances to produce the conditions that golfers are expecting.
The USGA has gone to great lengths to explain the reasons/benefits of fans.
http://www.usga.org/news/2011/August/Using-Turf-Fans-In-The-Northeast/
-
I played a course in southern Delaware this summer that employed some of these big fans, and powered like I typically notice by electricity. But one of them on the course appeared to have been retrofitted with a small horsepower gasoline motor!
-
I think the combination of high cost, improved attitudes towards tree management and the success seen in tournament golf using new Bermuda strains has changed what golfers expect.
-
Since 1936. And it died every summer. Fans give it, along with turf at Pine Valley, Kinloch, Muirfield Village, Oakmont VICTORIA National, Winged Foot, to name a few, the best chance to survive the heat and humidity. University research along with Superintendent testing prove their worth. You've always had some sort of thing against them and do not care to understand or see the benefit.
Fans are not an end all, be all to turfgrass heath. They are a tool. Just like Subair. These tools allow Superintendents that best chances to produce the conditions that golfers are expecting.
The USGA has gone to great lengths to explain the reasons/benefits of fans.
http://www.usga.org/news/2011/August/Using-Turf-Fans-In-The-Northeast/
[/quote]
Better, classier answer than I might have given ;D
-
We put in fans at my club in Charlotte about 3 years ago. They have proven their worth keeping the bent from disease and death in the summer. Cutting trees and repositioning some greens for better circulation was just not enough. I suppose that if we re-did our greens today, they'd be one of the mini-Bermuda strains, but as it is now they're only five years old and I cannot imagine the club ripping them out so soon. So, I expect that long-term the fans will become less and less appropriate as courses change grass, but I don't see it happening overnight. "Perfect" is hard to come by.
-
I've only found them a distraction the first time you see them. They are part of the maintenance of a golf course these days. Most if not all are at least painted a tasteful color, and partially hidden from line sight.
-
Fan installation is superintendent driven. There are equal methods that unfortunately put the super at risk. I was just telling my son the benefit of being a golfer such as I are the friendships you are able to develop while playing. Men need activity to associate. Sometimes you need to talk to a friend and this is easily done on a golf course. Large green side fans make this impossible killing the social aspect of the game. I may as well go to a casino and play the slots alone as golf in an environment created by supers for supers.
I have seen zero evidence that the greens at my home course are better after the installation of the fans than before. Just cause you don't die doesn't win your Dr. the Nobel Prize. I submit as proof that this is fact by the very evidence that the super who installed the fans does not require them at his new gig. He simply hired a competent architect to design a fan less restoration. I give him credit for learning from his mistakes.
-
Fan installation is superintendent driven. There are equal methods that unfortunately put the super at risk. I was just telling my son the benefit of being a golfer such as I are the friendships you are able to develop while playing. Men need activity to associate. Sometimes you need to talk to a friend and this is easily done on a golf course. Large green side fans make this impossible killing the social aspect of the game. I may as well go to a casino and play the slots alone as golf in an environment created by supers for supers.
I have seen zero evidence that the greens at my home course are better after the installation of the fans than before. Just cause you don't die doesn't win your Dr. the Nobel Prize. I submit as proof that this is fact by the very evidence that the super who installed the fans does not require them at his new gig. He simply hired a competent architect to design a fan less restoration. I give him credit for learning from his mistakes.
Come on, John. I do not think that it's any secret thatyou've had a thing against your previous Superitendent and now after 5-6 years since leaving Vic, you're still trying to drag him down. Weird, how he as named Superintedent of the year recently. I supposed that hes doing a few things right. Also, I would have to think that you're pretty ignorant if you think that Newburgh, IN and Philadelphia have the same climate, soils, turf, tree issues, etc....Different property have different needs. The fact that he may be 100 miles away could be enough difference?
I dont know why you're trying to drag this guy in the ground, still after so many years? What are you trying to gain?
-
I'm only complimenting the man for not ruining his new course with fans. It takes a bigger man than me to not make the same mistake twice. I will no more expect a fellow super to disparage fans than I would a 53 yr old fat man to come out against Viagra. They both make our lives easier with the only difference being the fat man doesn't go from town to town sticking his dick where it isn't wanted. Fans, like Viagra, are nothing but a crutch for those who fear their natural talent can't seal the deal.
-
".....to produce the conditions that golfers are expecting."
I believe that quote of Tony Nysse says all that needs to be said.....we superintendents are simply responding to the demands.
Beautiful fall weather here on the coast of Oregon.
Tom
-
".....to produce the conditions that golfers are expecting."
I believe that quote of Tony Nysse says all that needs to be said.....we superintendents are simply responding to the demands.
Beautiful fall weather here on the coast of Oregon.
Tom
Tom,
I expect more from a man who has consistantly given golfers what they need. No one demands anything else at Bandon.
-
Well, we do have TURF FANS here at Bandon......namely the Pacific Ocean! and it's temperate winds.....to counteract the 60 degree F highs here! My sympathies, respect, and prayers go out to all the game's superintendents (such as Anthony Nysse), who stick their A....es out to produce incredible playing conditions, and to meet the desires of all that play this incredible game.
Including you, John!
ps....When are you coming back out here?
-
Well, we do have TURF FANS here at Bandon......namely the Pacific Ocean! and it's temperate winds.....to counteract the 60 degree F highs here! My sympathies, respect, and prayers go out to all the game's superintendents (such as Anthony Nysse), who stick their A....es out to produce incredible playing conditions, and to meet the desires of all that play this incredible game.
Including you, John!
ps....When are you coming back out here?
Thanks for asking but I don't see myself ever returning to Bandon.
-
".....to produce the conditions that golfers are expecting."
I believe that quote of Tony Nysse says all that needs to be said.....we superintendents are simply responding to the demands.
Beautiful fall weather here on the coast of Oregon.
Tom
and the people want what the advertisers say they need ;D
nice morning here in the Highlands.
Jon
-
They may not be OBsolete but they will remain OBnoxious. ;)
-
We've hit bottom when only the most perfect climates like Bandon can grow grass naturally. Golfers will no longer accept the lie that they asked for this. We may be stupid but when your greens become louder than your car you realize something ain't right.
-
John,
If you're okay with putting on dirt, the turf fans will come down. I don't think many golfers will appreciate that. The heights of cuts and expectations have changed WAY TOO much in the last 20 years to make comments along the lines of "never used to need fans." Keep in mind, many courses still have the same grass on their greens when they used to be mowed at 3/16 or even 1/4" of an inch. (Pine Valley, Winged Foot, Oakmont, Merion) Now, many courses are mowing at .080-.100" of an inch. That along is greatly increasing the stress to the plant. Why do you think so many alternate mowing/rolling during the hottest, most humid times of the year? To leaf some more leaf tissue for the plant.
John, and I hope that you now this-Bandon has fescue greens...located on the pacific ocean. You don't think that's greatly different than bentgrass at Victoria? Bandon's high temps for the year are 68-70, average with lows in the 40-50's. Vic AVERAGES 92 degrees for over 8 weeks out of the year with lows in the low 70's? You're foolish is you continue to compare the two. Philadelphia averages 2 months in the mid to high 80's with night time lows at 70...on poa greens.
In Fort Worth, we AVERAGED 4 months with the highs in the 90's and 2 of those months AVERAGE 95+ and stagnant. John, please tell us what we (Superintendents) are doing wrong and how you'd fix it, other than just taking the fans down and dirt to putt on.
I would MUCH rather have the following noise than putt on dirt.
John, do you have A/C in your vehicle? When do you tend to turn it on and what is your reasoning?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5yzCoETwAY
-
This is a topic best not visited simply because we agree to disagree. The superintendents on here know just how truly valuable turf fans are in enabling them to not only keep bentgrass greens alive, but provide the quality conditions golfers want (or in some cases demand) during the most trying of climatic conditions (heat PLUS humidity). Certain golfers on here do not know jack squat about growing grass and wish the game was still played with hickory shafts and fairways were mowed with sheep. ;)
Golf is a global game played on a myriad of grasses, in a myriad of climates. The Transition Zone of the U.S. is known as one of the most difficult and challenging environments for golf course superintendents because there is not a single grass best suited for that environment. The newer ultra-dwarf bermudagrasses are certainly making headway as many courses convert their bentgrass greens to the newer bermudagrasses. In this instance fans are no longer needed because bermudagrass is a C4 plant and C4 plants are better adapted to survive in hot, humid environments than C3 plants (bentgrass).
I have 8 fans at Carolina Golf Club. When we renovated the golf course in 2008 we attempted to manage with only 2 fans at first (against my better judgment) and others were quickly added over the next two years. All 8 greens with fans are located on the perimeter of the property, and it's the tree buffer along this perimeter which contributes to the poor air circulation associated with these putting green sites. Several other courses in Charlotte have fans on each green (Charlotte CC, Myers Park CC, and Carmel CC South Course). In the worst of summers (namely 2010 and 2011) my greens with fans were noticeably better than ones without despite the lack of trees, etc. associated with the other putting green sites. When it is hot and humid, with little to no breeze, even the most open of putting green sites suffers from lack of air circulation. Those of you who wish to think me and my peers are lazy, I invite you to come and work with me and my staff for a day during July or August, and you can witness first hand just how lazy we are.
-
This thread reminds me of a past thread where a 22-handicap thought he knew more about the golf swing than a +3-handicap. ;)
-
I think Anthony says it best when he mentions the height of cut issue. Growing up in Ga we had not many problems with bentgrass greens mowed at 1/4 inch. So much of what has transpired with fans, greens construction, irrigation, mowers, rollers has all been brought about by a continual seeking of faster, lower HOC greens. I hate the look and sound of fans but the fans aren't to blame.
-
My home club in Vegas (Southern Highlands) added 4 fans this summer on greens that struggled nightly over the past few summers. Two of the greens had nearly half their surfaces re-turfed. Having been open for 13 years, what suddenly happened? A couple of years in a row, we had very humid and hot periods towards the end of August and beginning of September. This also marks the beginning of overseed, perhaps a bit early, but it is an attempt to satisfy the need for golf in October which is the best month for golf in Vegas. We also have an abundance of trees which have grown up and have begun to block air moving across the green surfaces. The superintendent has started aggressively begun to thin and remove certain trees around stressed greens for air flow and to get sun in during the winter months. There is also talk of using the fans during the winter to keep frost off these greens. Our super feels the fans made a huge difference this year. For the record, SH has bent greens.
-
My home club in Vegas (Southern Highlands) added 4 fans this summer on greens that struggled nightly over the past few summers. Two of the greens had nearly half their surfaces re-turfed. Having been open for 13 years, what suddenly happened? A couple of years in a row, we had very humid and hot periods towards the end of August and beginning of September. This also marks the beginning of overseed, perhaps a bit early, but it is an attempt to satisfy the need for golf in October which is the best month for golf in Vegas. We also have an abundance of trees which have grown up and have begun to block air moving across the green surfaces. The superintendent has started aggressively begun to thin and remove certain trees around stressed greens for air flow and to get sun in during the winter months. There is also talk of using the fans during the winter to keep frost off these greens. Our super feels the fans made a huge difference this year. For the record, SH has bent greens.
Im certainly not your Superintendent, nor to I want to grow bentgrass in Las Vegas, but the need for fans could be a couple things and these are just guesses after 13 years of turf growth.
Trees-13 years of growth. If they are pines, with they very well may be (they were a lot at Shadow Creek) they can be very aggressive. While juvenile, pine can grow several feet a year, depending on variety.
Thatch-After 13 years, you're greens have some form of thatch in them, meaning that they MAY hold a little more moisture than when they were brand new and thatch free.
Climate Change-Just like you mentioned, the last few summers have been different, as they have been in the northeast and southeast. You're Superintendent is adapting to the climate.
-
I think Anthony says it best when he mentions the height of cut issue. Growing up in Ga we had not many problems with bentgrass greens mowed at 1/4 inch. So much of what has transpired with fans, greens construction, irrigation, mowers, rollers has all been brought about by a continual seeking of faster, lower HOC greens. I hate the look and sound of fans but the fans aren't to blame.
More turf/higher heights=less stress. Think about Tiger's comments before this years PGA and how the greens were running very slow at Oak Hill? They were having a difficult summer with overly wet conditions, humid and didnt want to stress the plant before the event. I don't think that they were any issues with speed for the event. I think that's where Jeff commented along the lines of "that he doesn't remember Stanford giving out a turf degree."
-
My home club in Vegas (Southern Highlands) added 4 fans this summer on greens that struggled nightly over the past few summers. Two of the greens had nearly half their surfaces re-turfed. Having been open for 13 years, what suddenly happened? A couple of years in a row, we had very humid and hot periods towards the end of August and beginning of September. This also marks the beginning of overseed, perhaps a bit early, but it is an attempt to satisfy the need for golf in October which is the best month for golf in Vegas. We also have an abundance of trees which have grown up and have begun to block air moving across the green surfaces. The superintendent has started aggressively begun to thin and remove certain trees around stressed greens for air flow and to get sun in during the winter months. There is also talk of using the fans during the winter to keep frost off these greens. Our super feels the fans made a huge difference this year. For the record, SH has bent greens.
Im certainly not your Superintendent, nor to I want to grow bentgrass in Las Vegas, but the need for fans could be a couple things and these are just guesses after 13 years of turf growth.
Trees-13 years of growth. If they are pines, with they very well may be (they were a lot at Shadow Creek) they can be very aggressive. While juvenile, pine can grow several feet a year, depending on variety.
Thatch-After 13 years, you're greens have some form of thatch in them, meaning that they MAY hold a little more moisture than when they were brand new and thatch free.
Climate Change-Just like you mentioned, the last few summers have been different, as they have been in the northeast and southeast. You're Superintendent is adapting to the climate.
In response to your comment about trees, I would add "and then some...." Southern Highlands is certainly the last course in Vegas to be able to design and maintain a parkland course with a large number of trees and lots of turf. Much better looking than most desert courses, but it is a challenge to maintain with a million dollar plus water bill. And yes, most of the trees are pines which have taken to the environment created for them. The Superintendent is actively looking at and removing trees now that they have become mature and in some cases, huge. They also are trying to trim the undergrowth back.
On thatch, the greens are aggressively punched twice a year, so that has to help I'm guessing.
I do think that at some point in the future, courses in the area will have to look at converting to year around bermuda. Perhaps some variant will be (or has been) produced that will not go dormant quite so early. I believe that Vegas as one of the tougher places to figure out the turf. If you go bermuda, your course is brown for much of the winter. Overseed, besides the cost, requires the suppression of the bermuda with smaller percentages of coverage every summer. There is no perfect solution, but green still sells. And so we come back to fans.
-
This is a topic best not visited simply because we agree to disagree. The superintendents on here know just how truly valuable turf fans are in enabling them to not only keep bentgrass greens alive, but provide the quality conditions golfers want (or in some cases demand) during the most trying of climatic conditions (heat PLUS humidity). Certain golfers on here do not know jack squat about growing grass and wish the game was still played with hickory shafts and fairways were mowed with sheep. ;)
Golf is a global game played on a myriad of grasses, in a myriad of climates. The Transition Zone of the U.S. is known as one of the most difficult and challenging environments for golf course superintendents because there is not a single grass best suited for that environment. The newer ultra-dwarf bermudagrasses are certainly making headway as many courses convert their bentgrass greens to the newer bermudagrasses. In this instance fans are no longer needed because bermudagrass is a C4 plant and C4 plants are better adapted to survive in hot, humid environments than C3 plants (bentgrass).
I have 8 fans at Carolina Golf Club. When we renovated the golf course in 2008 we attempted to manage with only 2 fans at first (against my better judgment) and others were quickly added over the next two years. All 8 greens with fans are located on the perimeter of the property, and it's the tree buffer along this perimeter which contributes to the poor air circulation associated with these putting green sites. Several other courses in Charlotte have fans on each green (Charlotte CC, Myers Park CC, and Carmel CC South Course). In the worst of summers (namely 2010 and 2011) my greens with fans were noticeably better than ones without despite the lack of trees, etc. associated with the other putting green sites. When it is hot and humid, with little to no breeze, even the most open of putting green sites suffers from lack of air circulation. Those of you who wish to think me and my peers are lazy, I invite you to come and work with me and my staff for a day during July or August, and you can witness first hand just how lazy we are.
I hate for an excellent post like the above to get lost on page 1 as the 24th post. Being in the asphalt business I feel for your people in July and August. We all work hard. I'm just glad I don't witness a bunch of golfers skipping out on work while doing so. It makes a guy bitter I suppose.
I do have one question. Are the courses you mention all high profile clubs? A common truth that I stand 100% behind is that in any city where the high profile club has installed fans you can go to a "poor" club that operates on a shoe string that doesn't have fans but the greens are just as good.
-
I think Anthony says it best when he mentions the height of cut issue. Growing up in Ga we had not many problems with bentgrass greens mowed at 1/4 inch. So much of what has transpired with fans, greens construction, irrigation, mowers, rollers has all been brought about by a continual seeking of faster, lower HOC greens. I hate the look and sound of fans but the fans aren't to blame.
What input has the golfer who pays dues had in the development of modern green construction, irrigation, mowers and rollers? Do you believe that in today's economy a golfer will quit his home club and move because of a promise of green speed that in reality only shows up a few times per year? Have you actually ever met a golfer that enjoys his ball plugging in the fairway? As one of the leading architects of our day wouldn't you contend that you can design a green in any climate that can survive without fans? When did you start taking USGA studies as gospel especially when the conclusions benefit the equipment manufacturers?
-
I think Anthony says it best when he mentions the height of cut issue. Growing up in Ga we had not many problems with bentgrass greens mowed at 1/4 inch. So much of what has transpired with fans, greens construction, irrigation, mowers, rollers has all been brought about by a continual seeking of faster, lower HOC greens. I hate the look and sound of fans but the fans aren't to blame.
What input has the golfer who pays dues had in the development of modern green construction, irrigation, mowers and rollers? Do you believe that in today's economy a golfer will quit his home club and move because of a promise of green speed that in reality only shows up a few times per year? No I don't think he would move. And I agree 100% ith you that the good bent is only good a few weeks a year in many locations that have fans...
Have you actually ever met a golfer that enjoys his ball plugging in the fairway? No...
As one of the leading architects of our day wouldn't you contend that you can design a green in any climate that can survive without fans? Yes...but I choose the grass...
When did you start taking USGA studies as gospel especially when the conclusions benefit the equipment manufacturers? Never have..
John,
I know exactly where you are coming from and I despise fans. My main club just did a 4 mill redo a few years ago and have fans on all greens at a tremendous cost...it will not change as long as frat boy boards can't argue with employees. Raise the HOC and keep playing..
-
My home club in Vegas (Southern Highlands) added 4 fans this summer on greens that struggled nightly over the past few summers. Two of the greens had nearly half their surfaces re-turfed. Having been open for 13 years, what suddenly happened? A couple of years in a row, we had very humid and hot periods towards the end of August and beginning of September. This also marks the beginning of overseed, perhaps a bit early, but it is an attempt to satisfy the need for golf in October which is the best month for golf in Vegas. We also have an abundance of trees which have grown up and have begun to block air moving across the green surfaces. The superintendent has started aggressively begun to thin and remove certain trees around stressed greens for air flow and to get sun in during the winter months. There is also talk of using the fans during the winter to keep frost off these greens. Our super feels the fans made a huge difference this year. For the record, SH has bent greens.
First off, I have to say that I really enjoyed everything about your club the one time I played there during a visit to Vegas. Great course, great vistas, great vibe in the clubhouse. Second, it's a pity your superintendent went to the fans. The usual scenario is that there is agronomic improvement that is noticed or claimed, and the fans become permanent fixtures. Worse yet, once you see some stress on a ventilation-free green, somebody on the board or in management is clamoring for another blower.
-
I do have one question. Are the courses you mention all high profile clubs? A common truth that I stand 100% behind is that in any city where the high profile club has installed fans you can go to a "poor" club that operates on a shoe string that doesn't have fans but the greens are just as good.
[/quote]
All the clubs I referenced are in a group of the highest end clubs in Charlotte, NC. As to your theory, I guess it depends on your definition of "just as good". I have seen many supt's in our area with lower budgets produce putting greens in the summer with excellent turf density, but the putting quality harkens back to the days of Bobby Jones. It is a fine line we tread trying to provide the best of both worlds in a climate ill suited for one.
I believe the most frequent incorrect assumption most golfers make when discussing golf course maintenance or turf conditions, is that all things are created equal. The truth is each golf course is a unique, living, breathing thing. My course and my neighbor's may differ in age, soil composition, grass varieties, landscape, irrigation water source, etc. All these differences, minor in some cases play a role in how the grass grows on one side of the fence. The transition zone is full of good superintendents. Some provide great conditions with unlimited resources and others provide truly great conditions with much less. Most of us are simply trying everyday to provide the best possible conditions on that day for the enjoyment of our members and guests, or paying customers in the case of public courses. We do it because we love golf and love nature! We do it because we love seeing the sun rise over the course each morning and watching the sun set over the course each evening. We are caretakers and stewards of a little slice of heaven, and that is not something you take for granted.
Back to your theory...it is an accurate statement with regards to bentgrass putting greens, but only during certain times of year (late fall and early spring). During the worst of summer is when those with more resources at their disposal outperform and outshine those with less...at least that has been my experience in this business (25 years).
-
John, unfortunately is a classic golfer/member. I couldn't come up with the time to teach him nor would he retain enough of it to become informed about agronomy.
I'm compiling quotes from golfers and members to write a book about the most ridiculous things I hear in my job. Johns quote about the fans destroying a converstaion on greens will make the list.
You want the fans removed, raise the cutting heights, slow the greens down. You want firm fescue fairways, take away the carts or give me 40 rounds per day. I get sick of listening to the dumb comments on here about supers and our agenda's to push green grass and high maintenance practices, like we don't understand the golf economy or environmental impact of golf and maintenance. We respond to customers......My customers currently think greens rolling at 10.5 to 11.5 are slow! This is why we regrassed to a new bent that can easily produce 11.5 to 12.5 daily with minimal inputs.
We don't have fans but if I did we would only use them during the peak stress periods which amounts to a few weeks per year. This just can't be that big of a problem.
-
Fans are almost a necessity for those clubs that wish to have bentgrass in the South. Turfgrass issues and failing putting surfaces are complex issues and every situation has its own set of circumstances. To make blanket statements that fans are useless is wrong and uniformed. I would prefer not to have fans but they do have a place and are needed some circumstances.
Air movement is critical for successful bentgrass greens under hot humid conditions ... period.
-
This is the first season in which I removed all 8 fans from the course once the summer season was safely behind us. Prior to this year I had always left them in place and covered them. Last year my equipment manager brought our 2 oldest fans in for maintenance and painting, once I saw those two holes without the fans I knew we must bring them all in from now on. The fact is we only run them on average between 12-16 weeks out of the year depending on conditions, thus I owe it to my members to provide them the opportunity to play and enjoy the course without those behemoths in place.
They are a valuable tool, but as a lover of the game and the architecture even I appreciate the beauty when they are not there! :)
-
I always come back to the idea that everything serves a purpose or it wouldn't be there. In this case, it would appear that the members (or whoever is calling the shots) at a great many clubs would prefer those monstrous fans and bentgrass greens to the alternative, which is no fans and something other than bentgrass. So the fans are in service of that purpose, letting transition-zone golfer putt on cool climate grasses.
Which amazes me. I putt on Bermuda greens every day, happily. I can't remotely conceive of being willing to deal with fans in exchange for putting on grass that can't flourish without them. Not even a close call in my book...but then again I don't live in the same stratum with the type of clubs who can afford such extravagances.
-
John, unfortunately is a classic golfer/member. I couldn't come up with the time to teach him nor would he retain enough of it to become informed about agronomy.
I'm compiling quotes from golfers and members to write a book about the most ridiculous things I hear in my job. Johns quote about the fans destroying a converstaion on greens will make the list.
You want the fans removed, raise the cutting heights, slow the greens down. You want firm fescue fairways, take away the carts or give me 40 rounds per day. I get sick of listening to the dumb comments on here about supers and our agenda's to push green grass and high maintenance practices, like we don't understand the golf economy or environmental impact of golf and maintenance. We respond to customers......My customers currently think greens rolling at 10.5 to 11.5 are slow! This is why we regrassed to a new bent that can easily produce 11.5 to 12.5 daily with minimal inputs.
We don't have fans but if I did we would only use them during the peak stress periods which amounts to a few weeks per year. This just can't be that big of a problem.
I love this post, from being called a classic golfer/member too ignorant to understand agronomy, to calling your members customers. I don't know why but something about being called a customer where I am a member at a private club is insulting. The icing on the cake is your contention that you easily produce 11.5 to 12.5 daily with minimal inputs. That type of propaganda is exactly what gets us in trouble and leads to costly extravagances like fans. I love in your video when you choke on the number 12 and then feel the need to push it to 12.5 here. I've owned a stimpmeter and have done a year of research into actual stimps as I was building an indoor putting green. I promise you that no golfer would complain about a true 10.5. We need to stop the exaggerations.
That being said I am glad that after two architectural renovations you went with improved turf technology over artificial mechanical solutions. I wish more clubs took your path.
http://www.gcsaa.tv/view.php?id=2295
-
Of course we have to assume John actually knows how to use a stimpmeter. 8)
-
Probably to the point of wasting your breath now, Steve and Aaron. John doesn't want to hear the reasons, nor will accept what they are. He knows about as much about turf as I do paving roads=Not enough be a credible source.
-
Anthony,
So very true!
Steve Blake
-
I am calling for slower greens in a natural environment. So much for speaking out.
-
John, unfortunately is a classic golfer/member. I couldn't come up with the time to teach him nor would he retain enough of it to become informed about agronomy.
I'm compiling quotes from golfers and members to write a book about the most ridiculous things I hear in my job. Johns quote about the fans destroying a converstaion on greens will make the list.
You want the fans removed, raise the cutting heights, slow the greens down. You want firm fescue fairways, take away the carts or give me 40 rounds per day. I get sick of listening to the dumb comments on here about supers and our agenda's to push green grass and high maintenance practices, like we don't understand the golf economy or environmental impact of golf and maintenance. We respond to customers......My customers currently think greens rolling at 10.5 to 11.5 are slow! This is why we regrassed to a new bent that can easily produce 11.5 to 12.5 daily with minimal inputs.
We don't have fans but if I did we would only use them during the peak stress periods which amounts to a few weeks per year. This just can't be that big of a problem.
I love this post, from being called a classic golfer/member too ignorant to understand agronomy, to calling your members customers. I don't know why but something about being called a customer where I am a member at a private club is insulting. The icing on the cake is your contention that you easily produce 11.5 to 12.5 daily with minimal inputs. That type of propaganda is exactly what gets us in trouble and leads to costly extravagances like fans. I love in your video when you choke on the number 12 and then feel the need to push it to 12.5 here. I've owned a stimpmeter and have done a year of research into actual stimps as I was building an indoor putting green. I promise you that no golfer would complain about a true 10.5. We need to stop the exaggerations.
That being said I am glad that after two architectural renovations you went with improved turf technology over artificial mechanical solutions. I wish more clubs took your path.
http://www.gcsaa.tv/view.php?id=2295
John,
As you should know, since as a paver guy you have customers my members/customers are always right whether they are or not. I don't know if you play private or public golf that's why I listed golfers/members/customers, I don't know you from adam but I've listen to your type for years, whether it be at my club or my peers it's like a broken record.......Would I rather produce 10.5 everyday and save time and money you betcha. It would also put me out of a job. I have no idea where you play but 10.5 here doesn't cut it day to day nor any of my peers in the Detroit area. Since our turf was brand new this June we were very conservative and stayed around 9.5-10.5 for the first 6-8 weeks of opening but I can assure you until we hit 11 nobody was happy. Even at 11 all they kept asking was when we were going faster, which we only did for tournaments but for next season we will easily keep 11.5-12.5 which is the high end for our green contours and not losing hole locations. Everything we did (which was heavily researched) was done to improve conditions without adding costs. An example for you.....I love to play the game and nothing is more annoying than hand watering during play in the afternoons, we did that exactly zero times this year on our new turf....is that not less inputs!
In my interview, we were compelled to help folks who can't do what we do for green speeds....i.e. afford to shutdown and put a better sward of turf down.....therefore to put on a public tv spot that everyone should strive for what our membership expects would be plain stupid. I didn't want to infer that all clubs in all climates can do what we did, it's not that simple......Its a cut and edited video not all my comments are on it.......I also don't speak for my fellow supers in the transition zone where they must decide which part of bad do they wish to deal with, there is no panacea turf. Bermuda has positives as does bent and they both have negatives. When you find the perfect grass let them know!
Also, it was my only renovation here not my second and hopefully as more see what is possible it will help change ideas of what is possible.
-
Probably to the point of wasting your breath now, Steve and Aaron. John doesn't want to hear the reasons, nor will accept what they are. He knows about as much about turf as I do paving roads=Not enough be a credible source.
Hit the nail on the head, you can't reason with people who are ignorant to the facts.
-
If fans had never been allowed tree management would be a decade ahead of we are today. Mo fans, mo trees.
-
John,
So trees are the problem and not fans??
Steve Blake
-
Dead greens are the problem. Fans are not the solution.
-
John,
So what is your solution to dead greens?
Steve Blake
-
I'm driving. I will respond when I am at a secure location. I don't want to get in a car wreck because my Mommy isn't around to blow on my owey like when I was a child. Funny how modern medicine has advanced.
-
If fans had never been allowed tree management would be a decade ahead of we are today. Mo fans, mo trees.
I admit John you have passion but I think it may be misguided in certain situations. We never had a fan, never had a serious circulation problem, we didn't remove trees to accomplish any of this during our renovation. However, for the first eight years I was doing removals, you'd have thought I was taking their first born.
I know your correlation doesn't exist for our neck of the woods since I've never seen a fan on a green in the detroit area yet cutting trees up until the last five years was just plain sacrilegious. I will certainly agree that this conversation has taken place.....super we need to remove these trees to improve the health of this green....members, that's not possible what else can we do....super we can install a fan. Ulitmately, it's the owners/members course so we try, maybe to a fault at times to honor their wishes.
-
Mr. McMaster,
Well said, one can always critiize from afar but superintendents have to work within the parameters with which they are given.
Steve Blake
-
I have never seen fans on a golf course anywhere. Where are they deployed except in the US?
Is this a self-made, US-only problem or do I have to worry that it will be imported to Europe like Burger King and Donald Trump?
Ulrich
-
"Optimizing The Turf Grass Canopy Environment With Fans"
http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/management/greens/Optimizing-The-Turfgrass-Canopy-Environment-With-Fans/
-
"Optimizing The Turf Grass Canopy Environment With Fans"
http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/management/greens/Optimizing-The-Turfgrass-Canopy-Environment-With-Fans/
Couldn't read it because the first section uses "affect" where "effect" should've been used. Lost all credibility with me.
More to the point, this document seems to be aimed at clubs that stubbornly refuse to cut down trees that cast too much shade on greens. If you're going the USGA spec route and planting new strains of bent but are not dealing with shade issues, you're asking for trouble. Or fans.
-
"Optimizing The Turf Grass Canopy Environment With Fans"
http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/management/greens/Optimizing-The-Turfgrass-Canopy-Environment-With-Fans/
Couldn't read it because the first section uses "affect" where "effect" should've been used. Lost all credibility with me.
More to the point, this document seems to be aimed at clubs that stubbornly refuse to cut down trees that cast too much shade on greens. If you're going the USGA spec route and planting new strains of bent but are not dealing with shade issues, you're asking for trouble. Or fans.
No amount of fans will fix shade issues on bent or Bermuda, USGA spec or not. You want good greens get rid of the trees.
-
I'm driving. I will respond when I am at a secure location. I don't want to get in a car wreck because my Mommy isn't around to blow on my owey like when I was a child. Funny how modern medicine has advanced.
What are you driving to Seminole?
-
I'm home on my iPad. I can not address serious issues on a tablet with my wife sitting next to me. If I get out of this seat and go to the desktop she will force me to help put up the Christmas tree. Tomorrow, patience.
-
are not christmas trees supposed to grow in peace until AFTER thanksgiving?!?!?
-
are not christmas trees supposed to grow in peace until AFTER thanksgiving?!?!?
I learned a long time ago to not ask questions about things that I don't want to know the answer. I've heard rumors that because Thanksgiving is coming so late that it is kosher to put up Christmas decorations early. I can see the corner of the box that the tree is in from my seat. I can't even get up to piss.
-
This is the first season in which I removed all 8 fans from the course once the summer season was safely behind us. Prior to this year I had always left them in place and covered them. Last year my equipment manager brought our 2 oldest fans in for maintenance and painting, once I saw those two holes without the fans I knew we must bring them all in from now on. The fact is we only run them on average between 12-16 weeks out of the year depending on conditions, thus I owe it to my members to provide them the opportunity to play and enjoy the course without those behemoths in place.
They are a valuable tool, but as a lover of the game and the architecture even I appreciate the beauty when they are not there! :)
temporary turf fans, great job!
does the sub-air system help with regard to the turf issue in inclimate climates?
-
"Optimizing The Turf Grass Canopy Environment With Fans"
http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/management/greens/Optimizing-The-Turfgrass-Canopy-Environment-With-Fans/
Couldn't read it because the first section uses "affect" where "effect" should've been used. Lost all credibility with me.
More to the point, this document seems to be aimed at clubs that stubbornly refuse to cut down trees that cast too much shade on greens. If you're going the USGA spec route and planting new strains of bent but are not dealing with shade issues, you're asking for trouble. Or fans.
No amount of fans will fix shade issues on bent or Bermuda, USGA spec or not. You want good greens get rid of the trees.
Better stated. Thanks.
-
Sadly the typical scenario goes, greens die, fans installed, trees removed. It is a death spiral whose main goal is job survival. The large loud fans look like progress. Any intelligent customer can see that tree removal could have been done first so it is best kept on the down low until the greens recover. My contention is that tree removal would have been enough in the first place. No one who spent the money on the fans will ever admit that they weren't needed. The fans get the glory, they "earned" it.
-
I am based in Turkey and when I arrived had 10 fans on my bentgrass greens. We peaked this year at 49.c and are regulary over 40.c over the summer months with 30.c overnight. Luckily it is my low season and we are able to back of on the maintenance practices. We have also undertaken a large tree management project. I still however keep my fans on standby in case of extreme heat\humidity and last year converted them from stand alone to mobile units with a misting system.
-
Sadly the typical scenario goes, greens die, fans installed, trees removed. It is a death spiral whose main goal is job survival. The large loud fans look like progress. Any intelligent customer can see that tree removal could have been done first so it is best kept on the down low until the greens recover. My contention is that tree removal would have been enough in the first place. No one who spent the money on the fans will ever admit that they weren't needed. The fans get the glory, they "earned" it.
John,
I cant wait for your answer to this. Please explain to me then why Oakmont, who removed 4000+ trees in the last 15 year or so, to the point where there isn't really any left on property, still has the need to use fans? You cant comment on the Superintendent-JZ is widely considered one of the best in the business for providing US Open conditions on a daily basis and the fastest greens in the country. I was there in 2010 for the Women's Open and portable fans were set up and they have continued to use them because of the response in the turf. Not a tree on property, still using fans. Please tell me what your theory is.
-
Sadly the typical scenario goes, greens die, fans installed, trees removed. It is a death spiral whose main goal is job survival. The large loud fans look like progress. Any intelligent customer can see that tree removal could have been done first so it is best kept on the down low until the greens recover. My contention is that tree removal would have been enough in the first place. No one who spent the money on the fans will ever admit that they weren't needed. The fans get the glory, they "earned" it.
John,
I cant wait for your answer to this. Please explain to me then why Oakmont, who removed 4000+ trees in the last 15 year or so, to the point where there isn't really any left on property, still has the need to use fans? You cant comment on the Superintendent-JZ is widely considered one of the best in the business for providing US Open conditions on a daily basis and the fastest greens in the country. I was there in 2010 for the Women's Open and portable fans were set up and they have continued to use them because of the response in the turf. Not a tree on property, still using fans. Please tell me what your theory is.
Anthony,
At the risk of making Jaka sound like a smart guy, it really is pretty simple. Oakmont does not need fans, they just need to dial the greens down to 10.5.
Merion flattened 2 or 3 greens for speed. Oakmont is using fans to maintain speed. This is the entire point of Don's thread, "How loud should we speak up?"
The standard reply from the industry is "that is what the members want."
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=57300.0
In the words of Don, "Speak Up". :D
Oakmont was THE "thought leader" in the industry when they took out all of their trees. Many of us read the story about how they took out trees in the winter at night so that members do not get upset. Now maybe Oakmont can be the "thought leader" and remove the fans and dial down the speed of the greens.
I am a lucky guy, Yale does not have the money to rip out all the trees (many are gone) or redo greens, so they peak out at 10.5, I think. Too much money is a real problem in golf, imo.
This kind of reminds me of a visit to the doctor. "Mike, lose 10 pounds or go on blood pressure medication." I lost the the 10 lbs rather than go on medication.
Oakmont has a similar choice, more fans or less speed…. I get it, members are stupid, don't understand…
I just finished doing the winter cut on 5 acres in Connecticut as our lawn guy got sick this fall. I really do appreciate the greenskeepers here and elsewhere this fall!
-
I had the same question about Subair as William. Does this system circumvent the usage of fans in really humid and warm environments? John is not in favor of the fans, that's clear here but on the other hand his job is not on the line if the greens go to hell in a hand basket as a result of not using them or letting the greens slow down till the point the membership is not happy. I understand how he might feel from the perspective of having a completely different opinion than the course of action that is being taken and ending up having to pay for this against your will thinking there is a much better solution.
Without the expertise of those involved in this thread I'd like to try to add to it with a relevant and current situation from my own club since I can't talk about your clubs or clubs in the South of the US with warm humid climates. John may well have a heart attack.
Sand based links turf. Colonial bent greens. 5 holes in the trees, the rest open links holes with no trees. Obvious solution, tree removal. Not a short term option. We are facing a 100% ban on chemicals, read 100%. Two different environments exits. Average temps between 45 low and 75 high. Wet maritime climate. Agronomist is suggesting:
Sub-air
USGA specs
Turf Guard Soil Monitoring System
With all greens in the trees 2 of which will soon be moved and renovated.
Greens in the trees, don't receive enough light and/or air in the winter months but we don't have the extreme conditions of the South of the US.
maybe we need fans as well....(sarcastic BUT) I think I will suggest it.
-
Sadly the typical scenario goes, greens die, fans installed, trees removed. It is a death spiral whose main goal is job survival. The large loud fans look like progress. Any intelligent customer can see that tree removal could have been done first so it is best kept on the down low until the greens recover. My contention is that tree removal would have been enough in the first place. No one who spent the money on the fans will ever admit that they weren't needed. The fans get the glory, they "earned" it.
John,
I cant wait for your answer to this. Please explain to me then why Oakmont, who removed 4000+ trees in the last 15 year or so, to the point where there isn't really any left on property, still has the need to use fans? You cant comment on the Superintendent-JZ is widely considered one of the best in the business for providing US Open conditions on a daily basis and the fastest greens in the country. I was there in 2010 for the Women's Open and portable fans were set up and they have continued to use them because of the response in the turf. Not a tree on property, still using fans. Please tell me what your theory is.
Anthony,
At the risk of making Jaka sound like a smart guy, it really is pretty simple. Oakmont does not need fans, they just need to dial the greens down to 10.5.
Merion flattened 2 or 3 greens for speed. Oakmont is using fans to maintain speed. This is the entire point of Don's thread, "How loud should we speak up?"
Mike,
I commented on this several posts ago that if the turf was allowed to be maintained at a higher height, this would be a different, but 99% of golfers, especially at Oakmont, demand faster greens. Their greens have always been among the fastest in the country.
-
100% of all golfers would love to play Oakmont exactly how Johnny Miller found her set up for the 73 Open. No fans needed then.
-
100% of all golfers would love to play Oakmont exactly how Johnny Miller found her set up for the 73 Open. No fans needed then.
This one wouldn't, so that's not 100%. Did you want to answer my question about Oakmont/Tree Removal and fans? Seems throw your theory out the window, but you're skirting around it.
-
Mike,
I commented on this several posts ago that if the turf was allowed to be maintained at a higher height, this would be a different, but 99% of golfers, especially at Oakmont, demand faster greens. Their greens have always been among the fastest in the country.
Anthony,
This is the circle jerk that John was referring to. By saying 99%, when you have no real data to support that data, you minimize the membership.
Over on the Black Mesa thread, this was posted.
Two interesting videos from Pat Brockwell, the super at Black Mesa, regarding the conditioning issues, particularly grubs. He is optimistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOEb3cBEO0&list=UUS-NJYb4Ln2BjMRYsMy33cw&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiicLCwzsOE&list=UUS-NJYb4Ln2BjMRYsMy33cw&index=1
Now it would have been very easy to look at that thread and say, "I'll pass on Black Mesa for now." Thankfully, Pat Brockwell took the time to educate his golfers. It is not a simple process to film and then upload to YouTube (boo YouTube :) ). Thankfully, Stewart posted those videos. I took the time to watch them, and if Black Mesa was in my neighborhood, I would make a special trip to play the course right now, because Pat took the time to educate his golfers what the issues are.
Same with Scott Ramsey at Yale, he send out some very detailed emails about the positives and negatives on Yale conditioning as he goes through the season. He had a tough summer but things bounced back in the fall, and we were all aware of the issues.
Obviously it is not 100%, but some members will read an email or Blog from the greens staff, and then they speak to other members. It is an education process and it takes time, but YOU have to be willing to take the time.
The concept that golfers and members are stupid or ignorant is not correct. People are busy and they have other priorities. Educating those people with take an enormous amount of time and energy, but a Blog or email cost almost nothing to produce.
I would like to think Pat Brockwell is an example of what to do rather than what not to do. Mistakes happen when growing grass, education is the cure.
-
John,
Think of the turf system as like a lantern:
The leaf blade is the wick
The fuel bottle is the soil
The kerosene is water from rain and irrigation
The flame is air flow from wind
When air flow moves across the surface of the green, the water is drawn out of the soil through the leaf blade. But when greens are surrounded by trees the air flow isn't adequate to draw the water out of the soil. These soils become waterlogged and the turf struggles for lack of oxygen in the soil. Healthy soil has a balance of air and water, but in an environment where air flow is greatly restricted the balance tips to water.
-
When is John going to take on carts and cart paths?
-
Mike,
I commented on this several posts ago that if the turf was allowed to be maintained at a higher height, this would be a different, but 99% of golfers, especially at Oakmont, demand faster greens. Their greens have always been among the fastest in the country.
Anthony,
This is the circle jerk that John was referring to. By saying 99%, when you have no real data to support that data, you minimize the membership.
Over on the Black Mesa thread, this was posted.
Two interesting videos from Pat Brockwell, the super at Black Mesa, regarding the conditioning issues, particularly grubs. He is optimistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOEb3cBEO0&list=UUS-NJYb4Ln2BjMRYsMy33cw&index=2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiicLCwzsOE&list=UUS-NJYb4Ln2BjMRYsMy33cw&index=1
Now it would have been very easy to look at that thread and say, "I'll pass on Black Mesa for now." Thankfully, Pat Brockwell took the time to educate his golfers. It is not a simple process to film and then upload to YouTube (boo YouTube :) ). Thankfully, Stewart posted those videos. I took the time to watch them, and if Black Mesa was in my neighborhood, I would make a special trip to play the course right now, because Pat took the time to educate his golfers what the issues are.
Same with Scott Ramsey at Yale, he send out some very detailed emails about the positives and negatives on Yale conditioning as he goes through the season. He had a tough summer but things bounced back in the fall, and we were all aware of the issues.
Obviously it is not 100%, but some members will read an email or Blog from the greens staff, and then they speak to other members. It is an education process and it takes time, but YOU have to be willing to take the time.
The concept that golfers and members are stupid or ignorant is not correct. People are busy and they have other priorities. Educating those people with take an enormous amount of time and energy, but a Blog or email cost almost nothing to produce.
I would like to think Pat Brockwell is an example of what to do rather than what not to do. Mistakes happen when growing grass, education is the cure.
Mike,
Jaka just mentioned how 100% of golfers would like to play Oakmont as Johnny Miller did in 1973 WITHOUT any real data to support, so your comment has no ground.
Also, many individuals have tried to educate Jaka over the years and he doesn't want to listen or be informed. Even as I type this, I'm trying to educate, but its not going anywhere.
We have a great membership at Pine Tree that gets weekly emails about what they are seeing on the golf course or can expect. They WANT to be informed, especially when so many are up north in the summer months and projects are taking place down here. You have to be open to information and want to learn. Jaka had his mind made up about numerous agronomic programs years ago.
-
100% of all golfers would love to play Oakmont exactly how Johnny Miller found her set up for the 73 Open. No fans needed then.
This one wouldn't, so that's not 100%. Did you want to answer my question about Oakmont/Tree Removal and fans? Seems throw your theory out the window, but you're skirting around it.
Quickly, I don't understand your question considering you told me in another post on this thread that a course I complimented for not having fans wasn't relevant because it is located in Philly. I don't know the facts but I believe that Oakmont falls into my die, fan, tree removal theory. Once the fans are installed they are not coming out because there is no proof on exactly why the greens aren't dying.
-
I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old. It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf. If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer. My 100% stands.
-
Jaka just mentioned how 100% of golfers would like to play Oakmont as Johnny Miller did in 1973 WITHOUT any real data to support, so your comment has no ground.
Also, many individuals have tried to educate Jaka over the years and he doesn't want to listen or be informed. Even as I type this, I'm trying to educate, but its not going anywhere.
We have a great membership at Pine Tree that gets weekly emails about what they are seeing on the golf course or can expect. They WANT to be informed, especially when so many are up north in the summer months and projects are taking place down here. You have to be open to information and want to learn. Jaka had his mind made up about numerous agronomic programs years ago.
I don't give a sxxt about Jaka. :) We both can agree that he is a pain.
Now what do YOU think about what I said :)
-
John,
Think of the turf system as like a lantern:
The leaf blade is the wick
The fuel bottle is the soil
The kerosene is water from rain and irrigation
The flame is air flow from wind
When air flow moves across the surface of the green, the water is drawn out of the soil through the leaf blade. But when greens are surrounded by trees the air flow isn't adequate to draw the water out of the soil. These soils become waterlogged and the turf struggles for lack of oxygen in the soil. Healthy soil has a balance of air and water, but in an environment where air flow is greatly restricted the balance tips to water.
Thank you. This is exactly why I believe fans have become obsolete as memberships understand the benefits of tree removal. On courses like Yale where that is not possible I also believe the modern membership will accept slower speeds rather than see their course go further into debt. These are just a couple of the reasons the fans have become obsolete.
-
I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old. It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf. If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer. My 100% stands.
Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.
-
If we are really interested in change and controlling this destructive race for increased green speeds I have a solution. Dr. Klein, Ron Whitten and Joe Passov simply issue a decree to all courses interested in inclusion to their top 100 lists that green side fans during member play will exclude their courses from consideration. 30 years ago there wasn't a top 100 club with green side fans. Then the money started to flow and everything went to hell.
-
I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old. It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf. If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer. My 100% stands.
Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.
If you are seriously telling me that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 73 are not satisfactory for golf then you are part of the problem.
-
A couple questions for the superintendent's on this thread...
In an ideal world would you have fans on your course?
Assuming not, how would you propose producing the playing conditions that fans make possible?
I'm with John in that I simply can't believe the answer is fans or dirt but that seems to be the position here. I'm no professional either so if that is really the answer, please feel comfortable telling me so (even privately).
-
John,
The fact that the greens where slow in 1973 at Oamont by todays standards then yes it would be unacceptable to a great majority of the country club members in the United States. If our greens rolled that fast for our member/guest or club championship I would have an aweful lot of explaining to do.
John your right tree removal is the better solution but yet you blame the superintendent every single time. What if the greens committe/ chairman or board of directors said they didnt want to remove trees? And they still demand greens over 11 on a daliy basis? Then fans would be a good choice.
Steve Blake
-
I haven't read the entire thread, but I hope a Superintendent didn't write that it is either fans or dirt.
Very, very few Superintendents have every tool they desire. Fans are another tool used by Supers, just as chemicals, personnel, cultural practices, nutrients...etc...
One thing I especially do not like about this business is how we hold up those who have all they want as the model to follow.
Who cares is some famous course has all the money in the world and the fastest greens in the world? is that really what we in golf should be celebrating? Fans are a requirement at some courses, there is no doubt about that. But all those power runs and the equipment itself is very expensive and it is not for all courses. And, no matter what anyone says, I think they are butt ugly.
I commend courses that use tree clearing and common sense management to go without fans, and I do not condemn those who make the choice to use them. To each his own.
-
I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old. It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf. If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer. My 100% stands.
Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.
If you are seriously telling me that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 73 are not satisfactory for golf then you are part of the problem.
John,
Most golfers in America would not want to play on the turf conditions of 40 years ago. Would you want to drive on a road of 40 years ago or the most modern roads?
-
A couple questions for the superintendent's on this thread...
In an ideal world would you have fans on your course?
Assuming not, how would you propose producing the playing conditions that fans make possible?
I'm with John in that I simply can't believe the answer is fans or dirt but that seems to be the position here. I'm no professional either so if that is really the answer, please feel comfortable telling me so (even privately).
In an ideal world I don't think any super want's fans. It's not like you wake up one morning and say I want fans. Not all areas of the country or world for that matter require them. I equate it to a Colt quote in the 20's....all the suitable land for golf has been used up...or something to that effect. We started building courses in places that are very difficult to maintain, bad soils, forests, etc so supers have been asked to adapt to these evnironments yet a course built in the south of Indiana has a membership that thinks they should get the same greens and green speeds as a course on say long island where mother nature takes care of a lot.
I love when people tell me how natural one place is and the other is contrived.....it's all contrived, everything we produce on a course is manipulated to look or play a certain way. Some areas require less manipulation, others require a lot of manipulation.
-
John,
The fact that the greens where slow in 1973 at Oamont by todays standards then yes it would be unacceptable to a great majority of the country club members in the United States. If our greens rolled that fast for our member/guest or club championship I would have an aweful lot of explaining to do.
John your right tree removal is the better solution but yet you blame the superintendent every single time. What if the greens committe/ chairman or board of directors said they didnt want to remove trees? And they still demand greens over 11 on a daliy basis? Then fans would be a good choice.
Steve Blake
This video has some clips showing the roll out on the greens at Oakmont in 73. My God, they are not slow by today's or any standard.
Oh, and btw I love turf conditions from my teenage years. There are greens that I could drive in 76 that I can not reach today with modern equipment. Even courses in Southern Illinois were as firm as the finest British Open courses before the advent of irrigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwzw18rjXW0
-
I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old. It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf. If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer. My 100% stands.
Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.
If you are seriously telling me that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 73 are not satisfactory for golf then you are part of the problem.
John the turf conditions of 40 years ago would get a super fired in one season now. Look back at old tour event pictures and you'll see dead turf all over the fairways if that event was played in the heat of the summer. Hell forever, people just assumed poa died every summer and then would come back the follow season, hence the name annual bluegrass.
To your original point of the thread, I think that the turf researchers and breeders will eventually remove the need for fans. It may not happen as fast as you like but I do believe that will happen.
-
Don,
I agree with your stantement about high profile clubs and ultra fast greens, however the reality is that most members want to be Oakmont. Champagne taste on a beer budget!
Steve Blake
-
For me as a player, some forms of "manipulation" are more congenial than others. Cunningly designed artificial contours, if done properly, can offer a more pleasing golf experience than a dead-flat piece of property would provide without the shaping. Those courses with frilly bunkers that are carefully manicured to always look just the right amount of "unkempt" can be beautiful AND playable although they would probably be neither if left to nature.
On the subject of trees, in heavily forested property even clearing out undergrowth to make balls easier to find or moving the tree lines well away from greens and fairways to provide light and air movement can be a "manipulation" in what was basically woodland before the course was built. But that "manipulation" is a darned sight better than the alternative (again from this golfer's perspective).
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the part that beggars belief is that anyone who plays a course regularly might consider fans around the greens as anything but the least-desirable, last-resort, bottom of the list of acceptable "manipulations". By comparison, tree removal, higher cuts, slower speeds, almost any alternative would seem less injurious to the experience of playing the course. I love putting, it is one of my favorite elements of the game. And I love putting on fast and smooth greens. But damn, not if it means putting with those fans roaring all around me on hot days. Give me a smooth but slower green and no fans 100 times out of 100!
It sounds uncharitable but I can only come up with two possible explanations. Either the members of these clubs value the putting part of the game to the virtual exclusion of all other elements of enjoyment or they are totally in the thrall of what they believe is a competition for the absolute highest putting speeds at all costs.
-
John,
The fact that the greens where slow in 1973 at Oamont by todays standards then yes it would be unacceptable to a great majority of the country club members in the United States. If our greens rolled that fast for our member/guest or club championship I would have an aweful lot of explaining to do.
John your right tree removal is the better solution but yet you blame the superintendent every single time. What if the greens committe/ chairman or board of directors said they didnt want to remove trees? And they still demand greens over 11 on a daliy basis? Then fans would be a good choice.
Steve Blake
This video has some clips showing the roll out on the greens at Oakmont in 73. My God, they are not slow by today's or any standard.
Oh, and btw I love turf conditions from my teenage years. There are greens that I could drive in 76 that I can not reach today with modern equipment. Even courses in Southern Illinois were as firm as the finest British Open courses before the advent of irrigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwzw18rjXW0
John are you just one of those everything older is better, I remember gentler times etc? In that video, Miller hits a putt at the 6:08 mark that can't be 12 ft and he flicks his wrist so damn hard that in todays us open the ball would've run off the green and this is without insert putters which damn near deadens a struck putt now.
If you want to have logical dialoge about whether or not we should roll back the green speeds, remove insert putters etc that's cool but to say it was faster back then is just, well not logical.
Dead grass and hard pan do roll like hell btw
-
For me as a player, some forms of "manipulation" are more congenial than others. Cunningly designed artificial contours, if done properly, can offer a more pleasing golf experience than a dead-flat piece of property would provide without the shaping. Those courses with frilly bunkers that are carefully manicured to always look just the right amount of "unkempt" can be beautiful AND playable although they would probably be neither if left to nature.
On the subject of trees, in heavily forested property even clearing out undergrowth to make balls easier to find or moving the tree lines well away from greens and fairways to provide light and air movement can be a "manipulation" in what was basically woodland before the course was built. But that "manipulation" is a darned sight better than the alternative (again from this golfer's perspective).
As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the part that beggars belief is that anyone who plays a course regularly might consider fans around the greens as anything but the least-desirable, last-resort, bottom of the list of acceptable "manipulations". By comparison, tree removal, higher cuts, slower speeds, almost any alternative would seem less injurious to the experience of playing the course. I love putting, it is one of my favorite elements of the game. And I love putting on fast and smooth greens. But damn, not if it means putting with those fans roaring all around me on hot days. Give me a smooth but slower green and no fans 100 times out of 100!
It sounds uncharitable but I can only come up with two possible explanations. Either the members of these clubs value the putting part of the game to the virtual exclusion of all other elements of enjoyment or they are totally in the thrall of what they believe is a competition for the absolute highest putting speeds at all costs. BINGO!
-
To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.
Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.
-
To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.
Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.
Extremely well stated, Sean!
-
Mr. McCue,
Great insight!
If Mr. Kavanaugh had simply stated that he did not like fans and thought tree removal and raising the height of cut was better option then fine, what superintendent wouldn't agree with that?? However blaming superintendents for fans and how we can't grow grass and how we are lazy and how he has no solutions that do not blame superintendents is why he gets himself in trouble.
Steve Blake
-
To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.
Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.
Sean-To say that John is everything that is wrong with this site because of his position on this subject is both unfair and unwarranted. When you get to his level of contribution on GCA get back to us. I know you are marching in on 100 posts....
-
To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.
Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.
Sean-To say that John is everything that is wrong with this site because of his position on this subject is both unfair and unwarranted. When you get to his level of contribution on GCA get back to us. I know you are marching in on 100 posts....
Quality over quantity, Tim....
-
So I guess the Merion thread is the most meaningful thread in the history of GCA, because of the number of posts.
-
To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.
Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.
Sean-To say that John is everything that is wrong with this site because of his position on this subject is both unfair and unwarranted. When you get to his level of contribution on GCA get back to us. I know you are marching in on 100 posts....
Tim,
Sorry but I have been a little busy working my 80 hour weeks for my membership and haven't had time to meet you quota.
-
Mr. McCue,
Great insight!
If Mr. Kavanaugh had simply stated that he did not like fans and thought tree removal and raising the height of cut was better option then fine, what superintendent wouldn't agree with that?? However blaming superintendents for fans and how we can't grow grass and how we are lazy and how he has no solutions that do not blame superintendents is why he gets himself in trouble.
Steve Blake
Spot on!
-
Believe me, if John's past forays into marital sex practices and other Too Much Information areas have not gotten him "in trouble" here then pissing off a couple of golf course supers is not going to cause him much agita.
-
To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.
Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.
Sean-To say that John is everything that is wrong with this site because of his position on this subject is both unfair and unwarranted. When you get to his level of contribution on GCA get back to us. I know you are marching in on 100 posts....
Tim,
Sorry but I have been a little busy working my 80 hour weeks for my membership and haven't had time to meet you quota.
Sean- Maybe if some of your members give you an assist and get you down from the cross that can change. ;)
-
Guys, you will not find someone more supportive of the efforts of superintendents than me...but your argument here with John is ridiculous.
To summarize it, he wants you to figure out a better solution than fans and you tell him he's not qualified to judge your job. The problem is, your rationale for using the fans is that your members want them and they're no more qualified to comment than John.
You must know the message is accurate, you just have a problem with the messenger and his style.
-
Hate to dip my toe into this shit show of a thread, but my club got fans a few years ago - and we're like the club that Tom Doak mentioned on page 1 for our newly renovated course.
Count me on the side of those who hate these things. That said, if they keep grass on the greens and allows us to maintain the level of play and playability that we're used to, it is a minor inconvenience that I'll live with and the membership will live with.
I have noticed a tangible difference in the turf health of the greens since the installation of these horrible things.
-
Mr. Sullivan,
If is message is he perfers higher height of cut and mowing down trees then fine. Saying fans are superintendent driven ... not fine.
Steve Blake
-
Guys, you will not find someone more supportive of the efforts of superintendents than me...but your argument here with John is ridiculous.
To summarize it, he wants you to figure out a better solution than fans and you tell him he's not qualified to judge your job. The problem is, your rationale for using the fans is that your members want them and they're no more qualified to comment than John. I missed where the rational was members want fans. Members want fast smooth greens, in some, NOT ALL areas of the world you need fans right now to get the job done as another tool in the tool box or slow the greens down. Jesus were not curing cancer here, this shouldn't be that hard to understand.
You must know the message is accurate, you just have a problem with the messenger and his style. His message of fans = lazy and dumb is well dumb not accurate.
-
He wants optimal playing conditions and he sees fans as a detractor of that. It seems unanimous on that front.
So what's the solution? That's where he wants the conversation to go...
is he close to correct in saying a superintendent has never recommended removing fans once they're in place?
-
Just spitballing here...
Has anyone heard of a club contemplating fan installation at least trying the alternative of slowing the greens down a bit?
Do we collectively know of any clubs who backed off on the cutting high a smidge and decided that was more livable than installing fans?
Or are we talking about 1/4" long grass interspersed with dead patches here? Is that the actual, reasonable expectation if one of the clubs were talking about were to forego fans?
-
He wants optimal playing conditions and he sees fans as a detractor of that. It seems unanimous on that front.
So what's the solution? That's where he wants the conversation to go...Jim I'm just trying to get him to understand first that not all courses are the same nor memberships or golfer expectations. You deal with the setting your in. A climate can differ on a single golf course not to mention say 30 miles away so what I might get away with at one course does not automatically translate to the place down the street. I don't need fans but my course is in Detroit, does that mean that all courses don't need fans??
There are always trade offs in life.....your club or membership decides those not the super. His job is to deliver, as it stands right now if you want bentgrass greens in high temp, high humidity areas for the stressful period of time you more than likely need fans. There are a number of things that effect this though....are you a low round or high round club, what type of water do you get to use, are you limited govt wise on pesticides and tree removal. Our local township has a ridiculous tree ordinance that we must deal with. It's just not black and white like John would love it to be.
IMO your solution is find the grass that works in your area best and don't exceed it's limits. I don't know if John Doe's membership is willing to do that. If they are not, then you are forced to manipulate the environment.
is he close to correct in saying a superintendent has never recommended removing fans once they're in place? No clue, but I think most of my peers are always trying to improve things and I give them the benefit of the doubt that if fans are not needed they would remove them.
-
Mr. Sullivan,
If thats where he wants it to go then why didnt he just say so??
No superintendent wants to put or keep a fan on course if it is not needed. There are many solutions and every situation has a different set of solutions. There is not a cure all to desribe every sceniero where fans are used or where greens are failing. Each situation is site specific, region specific, grass specific, club specific, and not to mention the politics that are invovled in the situation.
The best idea is to consult your superintendent because he/she can give you the best solutions and if that is not satisfatory have a USGA site visit to help determine what are the best solutions for your specifc problem.
Steve Blake
-
Just spitballing here...
Has anyone heard of a club contemplating fan installation at least trying the alternative of slowing the greens down a bit?
Do we collectively know of any clubs who backed off on the cutting high a smidge and decided that was more livable than installing fans?
Or are we talking about 1/4" long grass interspersed with dead patches here? Is that the actual, reasonable expectation if one of the clubs were talking about were to forego fans?
Brent this would be interesting to hear if anyone on GCA had a club slow greens intentionally to forgo fans. Maybe someone will chime in.
-
Let's interrogate a slightly different scenario...
Consider a club in one of the climate zones you guys are talking about. A club with bent greens, located in a area that at certain times is far from ideal for the health of the grass and maybe some greens have trees blocking the air flow. So when maintained to a Stimp of 11 or whatever the typical target might be, they're either losing greens are coming close to it occasionally.
One solution might be fans around the most problematic (in terms of airflow) greens. What if the club just simply does not have the financial resources to run half a mile or electrical cabling, buy the fans and maintain and use them from this point forward?
What would be the first recourse other than fans? If for no other reason purely due to lack of financial resources.
-
Have there been any attempts made to disguise fans or blend them into the background in some manner (other than with paint colours)?
Also, is there an optimum fan installation height?
ATB
-
Mr Hutto,
I can say for a particular situation of mine that our 13th green in 2010 we received a record amount of rainfall, high temperatures and high humidity that mowing greens at .180" and .200" twice a week did very little. This green has a long history of losing significant grass both in the winter months and summer stress periods. Raising the height of cut, lessening the amount of rolling and cutting has not prevented turf loss. In fact this green has always been mowed and rolled differently than the rest despite weather. However some other greens that I have tried raising the height of cut has worked very well. It just depends.
The 13th green I mentioned where we cut at .180" has since had several hundred trees and underbrush removed. The green is much better but not like the others because we also have drainage issues and the green is 2,800 square feet and sits in a small bowl that makes it impossible sometimes for westerly winds to hit its surface. Also the green is directly against our eastern property line which means the neighbors trees cast a shadow over the surface in the first half of the morning. If greens renovation or intensive drainage is not installed then adding a fan is a possibly if we want the putting surface here to be consistent with the others on the course.
My recommendation is to renovate the green for several reasons: 1) its very small 2) it has both surface and subsurface drainage issues that are not easy to remedy without significant work 3) we cannot do much about the trees not on our property 4) Because of the geography of the situation little more can be done to improve air movement but to use a fan.. We have contacted Mr. Nuzzo to see what options are available to us in the department of renovating the green so that we solve our inherent drainage issues and increase the number of hole locations. At this time I would not recommend using a fan unless issues arise and all other avenues have been exhausted.
But the go ahead to renovate the green or take other measures is not in my control, its up to the members to decide. That being said even if we renovate the green I cannot say with 100% certainty that we will not have to use a fan. But in my expert opinion with a smartly done renovation we should be able to produce a putting surface that is as good as the rest. If not, the only other option besides blowing up the entire hole(which is not an option) is putting in a fan that would only be used during stressful periods and can be hidden quite nicely in this scenario.
I will not comment on other courses unique situations because I am not privy to all of the information that only the superintendent or turfgrass professional with knowledge of the site and circumstances can provide. But I hope my scenario that I have encountered will help…
Steve Blake
-
Thanks for sharing those details, Steve. It's an interesting situation. And I mean "interesting" in the sense of the old curse, "May you live in interesting times". ;)
-
Does anyone really believe that a better solution than turf fans will not evolve?
-
Mr. Hutto,
You’re welcome. But it’s what superintendents get paid to do.
I do not believe for a minute that superintendents push fans on the golfing public. Does that mean a few might, sure, but overall superintendents evaluate the situation, provide solutions with alternative scenarios, give there expert opinion, perhaps ask for the opinion of another expert like a USGA agronomist or architect and leave it in the hands of the members to decide.
Steve Blake
-
Mr. Sullivan,
Yes, improved turf varieties, better drainage systems, increased awareness of the benefits of tree removals and other unknown tools will all be better options.
But if the people who make decisions about whether to re-grass, install drainage, or remove trees decide they don't want those options then you are back to fans.
Steve Blake
-
Here is a fact. In every town with a high budget course using fans there is a low budget course not using fans. There is no guarantee on which course has the larger number of happy golfers.
-
Isn't happy golfer an oxymoron? :)
-
I wish the stimpmeter was never invented. I wish turfgrass joints were shut down. Supers can grow what grows locally just fine and make it work for golf just fine. I am always perplexed by the seeming need to create complex issues and problems when trying to grow grass for a game. When exactly did golfers become such a lot of knuckleheads? Folks shaving greens then installing fans and god knows what else to keep the grass alive have far more money than good sense.
Ciao
-
Isn't happy golfer an oxymoron? :)
Today more than any other time in my 45 yr golfing history happiness of a golfer is firmly tied to budget. The idea that golfers demand Augusta like conditions is no more. In a chicken/egg paradox the worst conditioned courses get the most play.
-
Here is a fact. In every town with a high budget course using fans there is a low budget course not using fans. There is no guarantee on which course has the larger number of happy golfers.
There you go again Mr. K...blindly assuming what makes one happy makes everyone happy! Yes, high budget courses use fans. Some low budget courses use fans too...and yes, there are some courses that do not use fans at all... but what makes the golfers "happy" at one course does not necessarily correlate to the "happiness" of golfers at other courses.
To each his own...and time to put this horse out to pasture before it's too late ;)
-
I wish the stimpmeter was never invented. I wish turfgrass joints were shut down. Supers can grow what grows locally just fine and make it work for golf just fine. I am always perplexed by the seeming need to create complex issues and problems when trying to grow grass for a game. When exactly did golfers become such a lot of knuckleheads? Folks shaving greens then installing fans and god knows what else to keep the grass alive have far more money than good sense.
Ciao
That is exactly why fans are obsolete. Those days have passed along with huge maintenance budgets. Therein lies the rub with this thread.
-
Hate to dip my toe into this shit show of a thread, but my club got fans a few years ago - and we're like the club that Tom Doak mentioned on page 1 for our newly renovated course.
Count me on the side of those who hate these things. That said, if they keep grass on the greens and allows us to maintain the level of play and playability that we're used to, it is a minor inconvenience that I'll live with and the membership will live with.
I have noticed a tangible difference in the turf health of the greens since the installation of these horrible things.
Once fans have been installed in the windy city, Chicago, all has been lost. My God, it must be summer up there for two weeks tops.
-
John:
Sounds like you need to buff up on your history and geographical climatology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Windy_City%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Chicago
Sven
-
Can someone give a realistic comparison on the speed of a green where a fan is used vs what the speed would actually be with no fan and adjusted agronomic practices such as height of cut?
-
Only the naive members start an argument with Jaka on this site.
Only the foolish ones continue it.
-
John:
Sounds like you need to buff up on your history and geographical climatology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Windy_City%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Chicago
Sven
I lived in Chicago for ten years, you know what I mean. The only reason Medinah would have fans on #3 would be because they can. That is one course that does not exist for member "play". It is a championship showcase status buster. At least they have improved #1 for the many times #3 is closed for tournament preparation.
In the modern golf economy the excuse "because we can" is quickly becoming obsolete and is such an outlier that is hardly bears consideration.
-
Only the naive members start an argument with Jaka on this site.
Only the foolish ones continue it.
Richard,
I trust you to tell me if I am trolling. I see some good coming from this discussion.
-
John:
Sounds like you need to buff up on your history and geographical climatology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_%22Windy_City%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Chicago
Sven
I lived in Chicago for ten years, you know what I mean.
Did you have central air, or did you just open the windows?
Sven
-
I was in college at DeKalb for a few years with no air conditioning and then moved with my wife to a couple of places with window units. I also weighed 80 lbs less and was young and very much in love. I can still remember spring time in Chicago and that feeling in my gut as we came out of winter. I think I rode that high through the summer heat because I have little recollection of every being uncomfortable.
-
Window units, the green fans of the urban residential market.
As an aside, the younger guys in town call that winter to spring transition "hunting season."
-
On a serious note: Is Chicago in this "transition zone" that I hear so much about?
-
Its just north of it, but moreso due to the severity of the winters than the mildness of the summers. Its in what is described as the Cool/Humid Zone, as opposed to the Cool/Arid Zone.
-
On a serious note: Is Chicago in this "transition zone" that I hear so much about?
Here ya go John
http://www.extension.org/pages/13152/transition-zone-lawns#.UpUHysRDtrM
-
If every summer were like this past summer (average temp and precipitation), Chicago would be fine - but that doesn't seem to be the average anymore (see 2011-2012 for reference). If fans make the 25000 rounds coming through the course better for the patrons during July and August, so be it. It seemingly doesn't bother my guests at all. In fact, nobody has ever mentioned them.
-
If every summer were like this past summer (average temp and precipitation), Chicago would be fine - but that doesn't seem to be the average anymore (see 2011-2012 for reference). If fans make the 25000 rounds coming through the course better for the patrons during July and August, so be it. It seemingly doesn't bother my guests at all. In fact, nobody has ever mentioned them.
How long ago did #3 get 25,000 rounds? Given your short season and construction/tournament preparation that seems incredible. Of course none of your guests complain about the fans. You just hosted one of the greatest Ryder Cups of all time and are a top 20 course in the world for someone in your demographic. Hell, none of the slap dicks I take to Victoria complain about the fans. Why would they?
-
John, last year was quite moderate but 3 of the prior 4 years had near record heat. There were numerous periods of multiple days in the 90's with high humidity. worse yet, there was minimal cooling at night. as a result, older poa greens were stressed and many were lost. Particularly impacted were those with poor air circulation. Even some of the newer grasses experienced trouble in areas of poor circulation. Greens near corners of properties where trees and mounds are used to shield views and noise are particularly vulnerable. In those cases, fans have been used to provide some help. Newer, deeper rooting grasses combined with efforts to improve air circulation such as thinning trees and reducing mounds can be effective and in many cases may eliminate or at least reduce the need for fans.
-
2013...we were well ahead of that pace in 2012 before shutting it. The traffic we plow though that course is ridiculous. In my opinion, ridiculously bad.
-
Shel,
I believe that you like me have probably spent close to 50 years playing golf in the Midwest. Sometimes greens die, it's part of the game. What is important is to accept these rare set backs with grace and not make knee jerk relations that diminish our future enjoyment of the game. Not an easy task in our impatient world.
-
One frequently sees fans in the vineyards of Napa Valley. ;)
https://www.google.com/search?q=fans+in+vineyards&client=firefox-a&hs=SHr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HVuVUvnPF4nqoASE44L4DQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1067&bih=559
-
One frequently sees fans in the vineyards of Napa Valley. ;)
https://www.google.com/search?q=fans+in+vineyards&client=firefox-a&hs=SHr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HVuVUvnPF4nqoASE44L4DQ&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1067&bih=559
What wines are they nurturing? Pinot Can't Grow, Mer Doh! or my personal fave Zinfailure. I guess the raisin market is weak this year and you can't drink dirt.
-
adjective
adjective: obsolete
1.
no longer produced or used; out of date.
"the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"
"most of the machinery in their Somerville plant is obsolete"
antonyms: cutting-edge, the latest, modern
2.
Biology (of a part or characteristic of an organism) less developed than formerly or in a related species; rudimentary; vestigial.
verb
1.
cause (a product or idea) to be or become obsolete by replacing it with something new.
"we're trying to stimulate the business by obsoleting last year's designs"
For something to be obsolete doesn't it require something better to be made or used?
I might be behind on seed research, but has an all purpose, need no attention turfgrass been released?
-
Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire: My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.
Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!
-
Sean,
Golf was being played close to 400 years before the invention of a practical electric motor. Fans are not a needed or a practical part of the game. They are only the product of a past environment of unlimited budgets and excess. Some devices become economically obsolete before the invention of a even more expensive replacement.
-
Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire: My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.
Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!
I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.
-
Barney; Some of what you say reminds me of King Canute ordering the tide not to come in. Whether we ever should have worked to propagate strains of grasses that allow us to create the smooth fast surfaces that we all enjoy and many demand is a moot point. They exist and it appears that there will be no turning back. The next step will be to bred grasses that perform the same way with less water and less chemicals. But once the genie is out of the bottle, it will never go back. Unfortunately, those who are a little behind the curve have to try to compete. They are the ones who have to do extraordinary things to keep their grass alive. Given what the others have, it is no longer acceptable to say sometimes greens die. Incidentally, my former super of 48 years (who you met) never lost a green. He came close but in his day we allowed him to slow the greens down to match conditions. Not today, at least not to the degree needed.
-
What John represents is an unwillingness to acquiesce whereas I read Mr Solow's latest post as the opposite. I think there is something noble in asking what the value is in dealing with what is, when one could be attempting to achieve what could be. Call it idealism or naivete (for the young) but it is legitimate in its roots. Some are willing to just deal with what is while only lamenting its cause or creation while others wonder whether we can change what is to what it could be.
There will always be a tension between the pragmatist and the idealist, as neither can truly understand the other.
-
To paraphrase Albert Einstein: I know not with what equipment supers will require to maintain grass for my children but my children's children can rely on sheep.
-
SL, JC - very good posts. I was just watching Ken Burns' Jazz series, the section where Benny Goodman has presented his integrated quartet to the public for the first time. The music they made was marvelous - they were like brothers. But a very old Lionel Hampton remembers coming off that stage and someone coming up to Goodman and saying "Benny, why do you have those ni--ers in your band?", and Benny replying "If you ever say that to me again I'm gonna crack this clarinet over your head". And that lead to Wynton Marsalis noting (I can't do his words justice) that jazz was the metaphor for dialouge - for a national conversation: "We have a problem here, that's right - but we're going to deal with it. And to deal with it, we have to come together, we have to heal it through a conversation, through soul. But to heal it, we have to face it, we can't run away -- 'cause the more you run away the more you run straight back into the problem". I don't know the answers of course, but I do know that the 'soul work' means talking to one another without artifice and without contempt, taking the various points of view (and the people who hold them) seriously, with presumption or flippancy. Fans, turf, water, chemicals -- these are legitimate questions.
Peter
-
Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire: My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.
Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!
I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.
John,
Who sets those standards? Most private courses have a book of standards that are guidelines in which the membership would like to see the course maintain. The standards of 1973 would not even be close to what is considered acceptable by most now. Fairways were mowed with gang units, with 5-7 blade reels. Now, fairways are mowed with triplexes and 11-14 blade reels. Bunkers are hand raked and need to be prepared with perfection. Approaches and tees are walk mowed when many courses had not even started mowing tees with a different machine than the fairway. Greens are spray hawked on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Spraying greens were an after thought in 1973. Primo (growth regulator) was introduced 20 years ago. Superintendents didn't even know what growth regulation was in 1973. The fight for purity in turfgrass was not even at thought, as just having grass was good enough.
And that's the biggest issue with this entire topic. Not only is "just having grass" not good enough, we have to have quality, tight cut, fast, firm grass. Your comment of "sometimes, greens die," would NEVER be acceptable to any Board Member or Greens committee member. In many cases, heads are rolled for this...the Superintendents head, which I am sure that you're fine with. Good luck to the Supt circa 2013 that tells the membership that pays them, "Hey, sometimes greens die." He will be given a brown box to place his office things into and removed from the property.
Grass wins over dirt....everytime.
-
Its interesting that turf fans have not really caught on in the rest of the world. Is it due to more realistic (lower) expectations of green speed!
-
Its interesting that turf fans have not really caught on in the rest of the world. Is it due to more realistic (lower) expectations of green speed!
I think expectations, in general. I've seen enough European Tour events on the Golf Channel and certainly think that some things I see wouldn't be acceptable here in the States. We also have access to many more chemicals, fertilizers and other in other in puts, so the expectations can be higher.
-
Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire: My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.
Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!
I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.
John,
Who sets those standards? Most private courses have a book of standards that are guidelines in which the membership would like to see the course maintain. The standards of 1973 would not even be close to what is considered acceptable by most now. Fairways were mowed with gang units, with 5-7 blade reels. Now, fairways are mowed with triplexes and 11-14 blade reels. Bunkers are hand raked and need to be prepared with perfection. Approaches and tees are walk mowed when many courses had not even started mowing tees with a different machine than the fairway. Greens are spray hawked on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Spraying greens were an after thought in 1973. Primo (growth regulator) was introduced 20 years ago. Superintendents didn't even know what growth regulation was in 1973. The fight for purity in turfgrass was not even at thought, as just having grass was good enough.
And that's the biggest issue with this entire topic. Not only is "just having grass" not good enough, we have to have quality, tight cut, fast, firm grass. Your comment of "sometimes, greens die," would NEVER be acceptable to any Board Member or Greens committee member. In many cases, heads are rolled for this...the Superintendents head, which I am sure that you're fine with. Good luck to the Supt circa 2013 that tells the membership that pays them, "Hey, sometimes greens die." He will be given a brown box to place his office things into and removed from the property.
Grass wins over dirt....everytime.
Anthony,
My first summer job on a golf course was in 1975, I was 15. We spent the summer regrassing 27 holes at Bermuda Dunes Country Club, one of the original Bob Hope Desert Classic courses. They were not regrassing because they had dirt, they were looking for higher quality turf. The Superintended was Harvey Hardin. I believe he has a number of family members who are still in golf course management in the Coachella Valley area. I think your description of how he approached turf management is a little weak.
As for you description of modern day maintenance, lets be clear that you are talking about the high end privates. Mowing fwys with triplexes and walk mowing tees and approaches is for those with money to spend. Lets be careful about assigning those requirements to all golf courses. Requirements for your course and your members, yes, to 90% of the golfers and golf courses out there, start trying to walk mow tees and triplex fairways and that will get you fired quicker then a bare spot.
-
Jaka B, scab picker extraordinaire: My answer is "No", turf fans are not obsolete. I still am a fan of turf.
Hoping this helps, I leave you to your flock...er..,antagonists!
I was told today by one of the top superintendents in the country that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 1973 would be unacceptable by today's standards. That indicates a problem with the standards not the turf.
John,
Who sets those standards? Most private courses have a book of standards that are guidelines in which the membership would like to see the course maintain. The standards of 1973 would not even be close to what is considered acceptable by most now. Fairways were mowed with gang units, with 5-7 blade reels. Now, fairways are mowed with triplexes and 11-14 blade reels. Bunkers are hand raked and need to be prepared with perfection. Approaches and tees are walk mowed when many courses had not even started mowing tees with a different machine than the fairway. Greens are spray hawked on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. Spraying greens were an after thought in 1973. Primo (growth regulator) was introduced 20 years ago. Superintendents didn't even know what growth regulation was in 1973. The fight for purity in turfgrass was not even at thought, as just having grass was good enough.
And that's the biggest issue with this entire topic. Not only is "just having grass" not good enough, we have to have quality, tight cut, fast, firm grass. Your comment of "sometimes, greens die," would NEVER be acceptable to any Board Member or Greens committee member. In many cases, heads are rolled for this...the Superintendents head, which I am sure that you're fine with. Good luck to the Supt circa 2013 that tells the membership that pays them, "Hey, sometimes greens die." He will be given a brown box to place his office things into and removed from the property.
Grass wins over dirt....everytime.
Anthony,
My first summer job on a golf course was in 1975, I was 15. We spent the summer regrassing 27 holes at Bermuda Dunes Country Club, one of the original Bob Hope Desert Classic courses. They were not regrassing because they had dirt, they were looking for higher quality turf. The Superintended was Harvey Hardin. I believe he has a number of family members who are still in golf course management in the Coachella Valley area. I think your description of how he approached turf management is a little weak.
As for you description of modern day maintenance, lets be clear that you are talking about the high end privates. Mowing fwys with triplexes and walk mowing tees and approaches is for those with money to spend. Lets be careful about assigning those requirements to all golf courses. Requirements for your course and your members, yes, to 90% of the golfers and golf courses out there, start trying to walk mow tees and triplex fairways and that will get you fired quicker then a bare spot.
Don,
My dad has been a Superintendent for 40 years. My description of the 70's isn't that far off. In fact, conditions in the 1980's would be acceptable to most now. I do not remember calling out Mr. Hardin in any form, unless you're making a broad statement or assumption, which we cant do on this tread.
I am also being crystal clear Don, when comparing modern day, high end maintenance to John's bitching about fans. John is a member at Victoria National. L-93 bentgrass from tee to green, bluegrass roughs in southern Indiana. They walk mow tees, apps and greens. Triplex fairways. Handrake bunkers and have fans. He's complaining about fans at his high end course. So, can I not also point out other things high end courses do? These are apples to apples, Don. John isn't talking about the muni down the street when he's complaining about fans, nor am I talking walk mowing tees at the $30 public course.
-
Anthony,
I know you are a legacy superintendent and I appreciate that. But I do not agree with your comment that supers in the 70s didn't think or care about purity. They were trying. My grandfather was a super and he was always trying different mixtures to try and keep the poa out of his over seeded greens. I'm in no way saying we don't expect better conditions today, but lets not say the earlier generations weren't all about the same things we are today, just with different tools and expectations.
You took me to task on a gang mower post not long ago. Said things like they would never be accepted by members. I never ever expected you, or the crowd you run with to use gang mowers. But for struggling clubs just trying to keep the doors open, it makes sense for them to follow my lead, not yours. It really is my beef with the high end supers. I have zero issue with their work, nor their methods. I don't care if you use fans or cut your greens with scissors. But I do care when you come out and act like anyone doing it any other way isn't doing it right.
Raising the height of cut and getting rid of the trees, or changing from bent to Bermuda, makes a hell of a lot more long term sense then fans, sub air, or new greens at MOST courses. Maybe not at JK's or Merion, or Oakmont, but at MOST courses, a good dose of common sense management would be a good thing.
I'm with Mike Young in that there really are two types of golf. The high end privates are in a completely different world then the run of the mill golf course that is the foundation of the game. Problem with our industry is the high end's drive the bus and all those trying to make money hold them up as the example. If you owned a little nine hole and had to feed your family off the revenue, would you spray Floratine or triplex fwys?. I don't think you would, at least not for long. And you know what, I'd bet you'd find a low cost, practical way of presenting a well cared for course that played great.
-
Anthony,
I know you are a legacy superintendent and I appreciate that. But I do not agree with your comment that supers in the 70s didn't think or care about purity. They were trying. My grandfather was a super and he was always trying different mixtures to try and keep the poa out of his over seeded greens. I'm in no way saying we don't expect better conditions today, but lets not say the earlier generations weren't all about the same things we are today, just with different tools and expectations.
You took me to task on a gang mower post not long ago. Said things like they would never be accepted by members. I never ever expected you, or the crowd you run with to use gang mowers. But for struggling clubs just trying to keep the doors open, it makes sense for them to follow my lead, not yours. It really is my beef with the high end supers. I have zero issue with their work, nor their methods. I don't care if you use fans or cut your greens with scissors. But I do care when you come out and act like anyone doing it any other way isn't doing it right.
Raising the height of cut and getting rid of the trees, or changing from bent to Bermuda, makes a hell of a lot more long term sense then fans, sub air, or new greens at MOST courses. Maybe not at JK's or Merion, or Oakmont, but at MOST courses, a good dose of common sense management would be a good thing.
I'm with Mike Young in that there really are two types of golf. The high end privates are in a completely different world then the run of the mill golf course that is the foundation of the game. Problem with our industry is the high end's drive the bus and all those trying to make money hold them up as the example. If you owned a little nine hole and had to feed your family off the revenue, would you spray Floratine or triplex fwys?. I don't think you would, at least not for long. And you know what, I'd bet you'd find a low cost, practical way of presenting a well cared for course that played great.
Stigma #1. Floratine is affordable. Every company wants to be Floratine, that's whey they all say, "it's just like Floratine." There is a program that can fit any budget. That's for another day.
Gang mowers have their place. I will confirm. At a private, dues paying member club? Probably not. Several courses use them for roughs here in the summer months because they are like tanks and you can cut a lot of grass and are not too worried about quality of cut.
Mike DeVries' Diamond Springs mows with gang units-right up to the edge of the green and over tee tops. But they are catering to a $25 round. This is where the issue lies in this entire thread-
If you were paying $25 to play, youd expect the standards to be different that that of a private club, high end or not. But thats what members pay for a high end clubs-better this, better, that, no excuse for this or that. Higher budgets equal less excuses. Where John is a member, the remaining membership and/or ownership wouldn't tolerate turf lose, unless under EXTREME conditions. This is why there is fans. And Subair. And a big budget. And many workers. The membership/ownership at these types of clubs provide the tools to succeed and expect Superintendents to do so.
John continues to mention the "course down the street with the small budget doesn't have fans." They probably aren't mowing at .090", rolling 2X and expected to stimp at 12. They probably also do not pride themselves on conditions and expect to present flawless turf surfaces. A little rough around the edges is okay. They don't have the money nor the players that expect those things.
Don, there are many different "types" of courses in America and you know them all. But with these different types come different expectations and requests by ownerships/members. Do you think courses like Victoria National, Olde Stone, Kinloch and numerous other courses would be able to exist on small budgets? No sir. These are all course that possess cool season grass, wall to wall where bermudagrass can be grown. There really is not a perfect grass for these areas of the country. There are alternatives, but these membership want certain things and have certain tolerance levels. That costs money. They pick the time of year they want to be the best. Maybe Vic isn't the best in the 95' heat of the summer because of the fans? Well, there are probably flawless in spring and fall. Bermudagrass wouldn't be. Superintendents can only do so much. When more is asked, it can cost money, but you know that. John is at a course with all cool season turf, when Quail Crossing, slightly north has BERMUDAGRASS fairways. Desires/wants cost money and time.
When John would like to put his big boy pants on and talk apples to apples, this entire thread will become an educational device. Right now, it's just a notorious, ignorant bully stirring the pot like his always does.
-
Problem with our industry is the high end's drive the bus and all those trying to make money hold them up as the example. If you owned a little nine hole and had to feed your family off the revenue, would you spray Floratine or triplex fwys?. I don't think you would, at least not for long. And you know what, I'd bet you'd find a low cost, practical way of presenting a well cared for course that played great.
Don,
As an outsider looking in, I would extend Mike Young and your "problem with our industry" and separate the high end privates into two groups:
1. Those with waiting list (my guess is 20%)
2. Those looking for members (my guess is 80%)
The big problem is that the 80% believe they are competing with the 20%, so they keep the big budgets and country club amenities hoping that the demand picks up again. Problem is, I don't see demand picking up for high end privates, imo. Anthony keeps referring to members of private clubs won't go for lower conditioning, but if you are in the 80%, at some point economics wins and standards will shift.
I would also add in a third segment of resort/travel golf where people expect better conditioning and since it is an occasional expense, people will pay it.
Anthony,
I find the exchange between Mike and Don (old guys ;) ) and you (young guy) interesting. It is very similar to the view of young entrepreneurs in the venture capital world. Mike and Don are fighting for profitability and you are fighting for a bigger budget (bigger market share), imo. Clearly the upside is bigger with you but much riskier and expensive if it fails. If I am writing the checks, I would pick Mike and Don as it is safer and less profitable bet/investment. That wasn't always the case, so your thoughts are not wrong, just riskier.
If I saw demand for golf growing, specifically new players, I would probably pick you.
-
Stigma #1. Floratine is affordable. Every company wants to be Floratine, that's whey they all say, "it's just like Floratine." There is a program that can fit any budget. That's for another day.
Gang mowers have their place. I will confirm. At a private, dues paying member club? Probably not. Several courses use them for roughs here in the summer months because they are like tanks and you can cut a lot of grass and are not too worried about quality of cut.
Mike DeVries' Diamond Springs mows with gang units-right up to the edge of the green and over tee tops. But they are catering to a $25 round. This is where the issue lies in this entire thread-
If you were paying $25 to play, youd expect the standards to be different that that of a private club, high end or not. But thats what members pay for a high end clubs-better this, better, that, no excuse for this or that. Higher budgets equal less excuses. Where John is a member, the remaining membership and/or ownership wouldn't tolerate turf lose, unless under EXTREME conditions. This is why there is fans. And Subair. And a big budget. And many workers. The membership/ownership at these types of clubs provide the tools to succeed and expect Superintendents to do so.
John continues to mention the "course down the street with the small budget doesn't have fans." They probably aren't mowing at .090", rolling 2X and expected to stimp at 12. They probably also do not pride themselves on conditions and expect to present flawless turf surfaces. A little rough around the edges is okay. They don't have the money nor the players that expect those things.
Don, there are many different "types" of courses in America and you know them all. But with these different types come different expectations and requests by ownerships/members. Do you think courses like Victoria National, Olde Stone, Kinloch and numerous other courses would be able to exist on small budgets? No sir. These are all course that possess cool season grass, wall to wall where bermudagrass can be grown. There really is not a perfect grass for these areas of the country. There are alternatives, but these membership want certain things and have certain tolerance levels. That costs money. They pick the time of year they want to be the best. Maybe Vic isn't the best in the 95' heat of the summer because of the fans? Well, there are probably flawless in spring and fall. Bermudagrass wouldn't be. Superintendents can only do so much. When more is asked, it can cost money, but you know that. John is at a course with all cool season turf, when Quail Crossing, slightly north has BERMUDAGRASS fairways. Desires/wants cost money and time.
When John would like to put his big boy pants on and talk apples to apples, this entire thread will become an educational device. Right now, it's just a notorious, ignorant bully stirring the pot like his always does.
[/quote]
Anthony,
Couldn't have said it any better.
At the end of the day we are providing the conditioning that is tied to a set of maintenance standards set by the memberships desire for near perfection at all times. Often times this forces us to push the limits and all the tricks of the trade are sometimes needed to accomplish this goal. When you sign up as a Superintendent at one of these facilities you know what your getting into and what will be expected.
-
Whether or not a golf course has a 200 K maintenance budget or a 2 million dollar maintenance budget all golf course superintendents deal with the same issues and problems. The higher budget courses have more tools at there disposal and many members feel there ought not be excuses for imperfections. When dealing with a living breathing thing within a sometimes hostel ever changing environment the more tools one can employ to meet members demands, the better. A superintendent is the caretaker of the members/customers course we do not govern by authoritarian rule as John sees to imply. If members what perfection then we need to try to provide that even though its not possible ...
I still remember John blaming supers for fans not quite sure why? But anyway ....
Steve Blake
-
Mike Sweeney,
There's no question that Green Budgets have expanded over the years, but, so has everything else at private clubs.
Labor, gas, power, chemicals, benefits, etc., etc.. have all continued to get more expensive.
The Green budget at most clubs is probably the largest budget and because of that, the most heavily scrutinized.
Having sat on Green Committees and Boards for close to 50 years, I can state, without fear of contradiction that every green budget we reviewed, was reviewed with an eye toward either cutting costs or maintaining costs, where possible.
From a line item perspective, labor and it's related costs, increased every year.
You had to give your employees, at the very least, "cost of living" wage increases.
Benefits, health, welfare and pension, increased commensurately.
Because the Green budget was the largest, it always received the most scrutiny.
Yet, the ground, house, administrative, pool, tennis, kitchen, dinning and other budgets weren't the same "target" when it came to controlling costs because they were smaller budgets.
The notion that private clubs spend with abandon to "keep up with the Jones's" is sheer nonsense.
Yes, there is a "keeping up with the Jones's" mentality, systemic within all of golf.
Every week a member would return from playing some course and insist that we import what he discovered at that course, on our course.
Some were legitimate issues, others were folly.
Most members are provincial in terms of their perceptions.
The culprit in this area is not neighboring clubs, it's TV and the PGA Tour courses.
Most members don't understand that those courses they see hosting a PGA Tour event on TV, had an infusion of money and prepped for a year for "show time"
Most members watching the PGA Tour on TV want to import what they see, whether it's varied mowing patterns in the fairways, approaches, tees, greens, etc., etc..
While I recognize the difference in private versus non-private clubs, isn't the ultimate user subject to the same syndromes ?
Don't the users of non-private clubs watch the PGA Tour on TV and thirst for the conditions they observe ?
Or is someone going to tell me that non-private golfers don't watch TV and don't want to see their course emulate the courses of the PGA Tour ?
-
JakaB,
I know of your long standing gripe regarding fans.
I remember your criticism of Pine Valley for employing fans.
But, let me ask you a question.
If you needed brain surgery, and a new stent was invented that would improve the results of the surgery in terms of improved morbidity and improved mortality, would you refuse to have your surgeon implant the device ?
Suppose the device required an external port, visible to all, but, the introduction of that advanced stent, reduced complications and returned the mortality levels to that of the general population, would you decline it's use ?
I'm not a big fan of fans (pun intended), but, there are situations where greens sit in an area where air circulation and/or sunlight are scarce. We know that the golfer of today, "demands" firmer, faster putting surfaces, so you can forget about dialing stimp speeds back.
What's your alternative solution that would allow superintendents to eliminate fans ?
-
Mr. Mucci,
We've been waiting for his solution?
Steve Blake
-
The 90's called, they want their supers back. The world and more specifically the golf economy has changed. This notion that members are out there stomping their feet demanding perfection is a ruse to keep high budgets at courses destined to fail if we don't change. The high end club model is possible but the high budget club is obsolete.
I would like to know if the supers out there who have gone to bashing me on twitter and calling be a bully here even believe that you can have a high end club without it being a high budget club.
-
John,
So your blaming superintendents for high budgets?
Steve Blake
-
I still remember John blaming supers for fans not quite sure why? But anyway ....
Steve Blake
I don't think he blamed them on supers...I think he said super have become dependent on them to the detriment of the golf experience.
Quite simply, he would rather suffer through some turf loss than deal with the all of the negatives the fans present. I'm not sure I disagree with him.
-
JakaB,
I know of your long standing gripe regarding fans.
I remember your criticism of Pine Valley for employing fans.
But, let me ask you a question.
If you needed brain surgery, and a new stent was invented that would improve the results of the surgery in terms of improved morbidity and improved mortality, would you refuse to have your surgeon implant the device ?
Suppose the device required an external port, visible to all, but, the introduction of that advanced stent, reduced complications and returned the mortality levels to that of the general population, would you decline it's use ?
I'm not a big fan of fans (pun intended), but, there are situations where greens sit in an area where air circulation and/or sunlight are scarce. We know that the golfer of today, "demands" firmer, faster putting surfaces, so you can forget about dialing stimp speeds back.
What's your alternative solution that would allow superintendents to eliminate fans ?
Patrick,
That is a quality of life issue. Here is a real world example of a man who chose to die rather than live on a machine.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/us/paralyzed-indiana-deer-hunter-ends-life/
I can't speak to what I would do in his situation but have stated and stand behind my contention that fans destroy the quality of my golf experience to the point that I would rather see a green die than have a fan. I would think supers would love a guy like me that understands that sometimes greens die in extreme situations. I believe the quality of the experience is tied to more than just the quality of the turf.
-
I still remember John blaming supers for fans not quite sure why? But anyway ....
Steve Blake
I don't think he blamed them on supers...I think he said super have become dependent on them to the detriment of the golf experience.
Quite simply, he would rather suffer through some turf loss than deal with the all of the negatives the fans present. I'm not sure I disagree with him.
The disconnect with you guys is your a very small minority. Very small. Not saying I wouldn't love to live in John's fantasy world but whether he thinks the 90's, 70's whatever decade he wishes to pick was better it's not todays reality.
I can tell you as a golfer and the all the golfers I know (which is a lot) they will sacrifice a lot on a golf course, dead grass on tees, fairways and rough but greens are not one of those things. People will go the extra mile and pay a little more if they know the course they can play regularly has really good greens. You want to see your revenue go in the toliet in a hurry, lose some grass on greens in July.
-
John,
Your right I would like people who thought and excepted turf loss from time to time. But I don't like people who blame superintendents for the use of fans which is what you stated at the very beginning of this thread. In another thread you said fans are used out plain laziness. I can only assume you mean the superintendent and/or there staff. If not who are u referring too??
Steve Blake
-
Aaron,
Great point and a good example up here in the north is courses that have winter kill and right after core aeration. Revenues go in the toilet !!
Steve Blake
-
I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer. Which was the better course? Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open? We need to turn back to save the game.
-
I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer. Which was the better course? Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open? We need to turn back to save the game.
John,
Ill ask a question that I already know the answer. Are you referring to the architecture or the turf conditions/quality? I already know the answer because science and technology have advanced too much in 30 years for the turf to NOT be better.
-
I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer. Which was the better course? Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open? We need to turn back to save the game.
John,
Ill ask a question that I already know the answer. Are you referring to the architecture or the turf conditions/quality? I already know the answer because science and technology have advanced too much in 30 years for the turf to NOT be better.
Anthony,
I absolutely don't know the answer and I curiously await your answer.
What was better about the turf this year at Merion?
Very few players made any putts at Merion, the greens couldn't be particularly fast due to slope(even after modifications to some greens) so if we're talking about the greens it'd be hard to say they were better.
The fairways were higher than US Open normal to hold the slopes.
Agreed that science and technology have improved, but is golf really better?
or just different and more expensive, with less slope to allow for the scientific advances in turf ??? ???
-
Jeff, that really is the question isn't it.
As the turf got better, did the game get better. I think in some cases the answer would be yes.
But as we gained the ability to get daily speeds to 11+ on our greens, we started to lose our surfaces in the interest of speed. Faster greens, yes, better golf, no IMO.
I know how hard supers work to meet expectations. I think most here do as well. That is not what we are discussing here.
The question is, as agronomy has advanced, has the game gotten better? I don't think the answer is an automatic yes. If the game is better, why do we have fewer players? Why do we have to spend more and more to meet what has become the conditioning expectations all supers use to defend what we do?
It has taken 8 pages to get past the bombast and get to the meat.
Just because we can raise conditioning to levels not seen in the past, does that mean we have a better game? lets talk about the game for a minute, not the grass.
-
The 90's called, they want their supers back. The world and more specifically the golf economy has changed. This notion that members are out there stomping their feet demanding perfection is a ruse to keep high budgets at courses destined to fail if we don't change. The high end club model is possible but the high budget club is obsolete.
I would like to know if the supers out there who have gone to bashing me on twitter and calling be a bully here even believe that you can have a high end club without it being a high budget club.
Once you finally define what you're view of a high end club is, examples can be provided. That being said, Yeaman's Hall is a very highly, rated golf course on a small budget. YH is vastly different experience than say, Daniel Island or The River Course at Kiawah when it comes to where their money is spent on how much is spent. Kingsley also comes to mind. A highly acclaimed course, that probably has a small budget compared to Oakland Hills. Crystal Downs is in the same boat as Kingsley.
-
The 90's called, they want their supers back. The world and more specifically the golf economy has changed. This notion that members are out there stomping their feet demanding perfection is a ruse to keep high budgets at courses destined to fail if we don't change. The high end club model is possible but the high budget club is obsolete.
I would like to know if the supers out there who have gone to bashing me on twitter and calling be a bully here even believe that you can have a high end club without it being a high budget club.
Once you finally define what you're view of a high end club is, examples can be provided. That being said, Yeaman's Hall is a very highly, rated golf course on a small budget. YH is vastly different experience than say, Daniel Island or The River Course at Kiawah when it comes to where their money is spent on how much is spent. Kingsley also comes to mind. A highly acclaimed course, that probably has a small budget compared to Oakland Hills. Crystal Downs is in the same boat as Kingsley.
If it hadn't been for turf and technology Merion would've been a flooded mess for the 2013 Open. You put that weather event there in 1981 and it would've been horrible.
-
Aaron,
Please elaborate.
-
I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer. Which was the better course? Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open? We need to turn back to save the game.
John,
Ill ask a question that I already know the answer. Are you referring to the architecture or the turf conditions/quality? I already know the answer because science and technology have advanced too much in 30 years for the turf to NOT be better.
Anthony,
I absolutely don't know the answer and I curiously await your answer.
What was better about the turf this year at Merion?
Very few players made any putts at Merion, the greens couldn't be particularly fast due to slope(even after modifications to some greens) so if we're talking about the greens it'd be hard to say they were better.
The fairways were higher than US Open normal to hold the slopes.
Agreed that science and technology have improved, but is golf really better?
or just different and more expensive, with less slope to allow for the scientific advances in turf ??? ???
Can someone please explain to me when the game used to be cheap. I personally beleive, as it relates to economies and incomes, golf has never been more accessable to middle and lower income folks than it is now....it used to be soley an elitist, high society game in this country. Now, can the average Joe play Seminole, of course not, but the quality they can play for a reasonable price is outstanding.
The problem is we need more golfers and in today's society I hear more complaints about the time it takes to play golf more than the expense as it leads to picking and staying with the game. As a golfer, this is why I hate playing a typical public, muni or say the South at Oakland Hills, it's like a death march. I can't stand playing golf that takes longer than 3 hours 45mins. No excuse for it.
-
Is the darkest phase in the history of turf management past us? Are courses still purchasing fans?
Or, in another scenario; Is the darkest phase in the history of epicurean offerings past us? Are restaurants still serving liver?
I, for one, loath the taste of this organ and henceforth proclaim it should be banned from every plate in the world. For a chef to pass off this afterthought slab as a delicacy is akin to culinary malpractice. Simply offering this disgusting pile of toxin filtering flesh is clearly a lazy man's effort to make a buck on the underdeveloped taste buds of diners everywhere. Slathered in onions to disguise it's foul and unrelenting aftertaste only draws further attention to this "meat's" vulgarity. I say, if a chef is incapable of developing a menu without the inclusion of liver he must be replaced...immediately!
Silly? You bet! How often have you noticed liver on a menu these days? How many golf courses, or better yet, how many putting greens require the use of extraordinary measures to keep them in good to fair condition during exceptionally stressful weather periods? Not many in both cases.
P.S. I really don't care for liver but have never felt the need to express my dislike in writing before today. Kind of liberating I'd say.
-
By the way, I thought fans were supposed to be quiet on a golf course. I know that on television there's the more that occasional "Get in the hole" shout but if you don't like the behavior of the fans on your course why don't you take it up with them? Tell them off John!
-
Aaron,
Please elaborate.
That would be a lot of typing but a few examples. They installed XDG drainage in all the greens at Merion somewhere around 2008ish, I could be off a year plus or minus Jim but near there. If they didn't have that drainage, those greens would have been unmowable bogs almost the entire week. The greens were also under growth regulation, which in weather like that (wet and muggy) your turf would grow like a machine, PGR's keep that growth in check. Combine unmowable turf because it's saturated with fast growing turf and the quality of putting would be terrible. Not to mention that trying to do it for the sake of a tournament would've causeed turf loss. I don't consider that acceptable when there is a simple solution of adding drainage to greens.
They been aearting and filling with sand on the fairways at Merion for awhile. Add new fairway rollers to that and presto you have very firm playable fairways in an area know to be constanly wet, bad soil and took a heavyweight punch of it during tournament week.
I could go on and on. Is this where we want the game to go Jim. I have no idea but it's where the game is right now, if new turfs or technology comes along to remove fans or other current problems they will be incorportated by supers I can assure you, well that is if members or owners want them.
Here is a good example for you. Here is Detroit in the early to Mid 2000's clubs would routinely be happy with green speeds around 10-10.5. 2005 our club and another high end club in detroit had a demonstration of a roller named the DMI speed roller. We threw it out for our members and they were blown away how much smoother and faster the greens became, yet we didn't lower the mowing height or injure the turf by doing more grooming etc. It added the cost of one operator which eventually was offset by other advantages rolling produced. Now everyone in Detroit has a speed roller or two because the members love the putting quality it offers. Is this good or bad, I consider it good since we added quality to the greens in the Detroit areas and it a lot of cases where guys were mowing super low to try to attain speeds, stressing grass more this tool allowed them to reverse that trend.
I see technology as the light at the end of John's tunnel, I'm not sure he does and certainly it's not coming fast enough for him. Sorry that's a big ramble.
-
Is the darkest phase in the history of turf management past us? Are courses still purchasing fans?
Or, in another scenario; Is the darkest phase in the history of epicurean offerings past us? Are restaurants still serving liver?
I, for one, loath the taste of this organ and henceforth proclaim it should be banned from every plate in the world. For a chef to pass off this afterthought slab as a delicacy is akin to culinary malpractice. Simply offering this disgusting pile of toxin filtering flesh is clearly a lazy man's effort to make a buck on the underdeveloped taste buds of diners everywhere. Slathered in onions to disguise it's foul and unrelenting aftertaste only draws further attention to this "meat's" vulgarity. I say, if a chef is incapable of developing a menu without the inclusion of liver he must be replaced...immediately!
Silly? You bet! How often have you noticed liver on a menu these days? How many golf courses, or better yet, how many putting greens require the use of extraordinary measures to keep them in good to fair condition during exceptionally stressful weather periods? Not many in both cases.
P.S. I really don't care for liver but have never felt the need to express my dislike in writing before today. Kind of liberating I'd say.
Classic!
-
Aaron,
Did prior rain storms result in "unmowable bogs for most of a week"? Somehow I doubt it. Can you support it?
-
Mr. Sisk,
Brilliant, my friend!
Steve Blake
-
Here is a good example for you. Here is Detroit in the early to Mid 2000's clubs would routinely be happy with green speeds around 10-10.5. 2005 our club and another high end club in detroit had a demonstration of a roller named the DMI speed roller. We threw it out for our members and they were blown away how much smoother and faster the greens became, yet we didn't lower the mowing height or injure the turf by doing more grooming etc. It added the cost of one operator which eventually was offset by other advantages rolling produced. Now everyone in Detroit has a speed roller or two because the members love the putting quality it offers. Is this good or bad, I consider it good since we added quality to the greens in the Detroit areas and it a lot of cases where guys were mowing super low to try to attain speeds, stressing grass more this tool allowed them to reverse that trend.
I see technology as the light at the end of John's tunnel, I'm not sure he does and certainly it's not coming fast enough for him. Sorry that's a big ramble.
And seven years later you regrass all your greens. I agree that if you are going to roll your greens during extreme heat you better buy yourself some fans.
-
Assuming I get the point of Patrick Sisk's post; it's amazing to me that the humor is in telling someone not to play the golf course if they know there are fans.
-
Aaron,
Did prior rain storms result in "unmowable bogs for most of a week"? Somehow I doubt it. Can you support it?
Jim, I can personally support when you get 3 inches of rain and you don't have internal drainage you will not be mowing greens at 7am the next day. Not really sure what you mean when you say doubt it, have you stood on a green after this type of event and had to make a decision on mowing, rolling etc??? You put a 400lb walking greens mower on a saturated green your gonna scalp it and lose turf immediatley. They received that Mon-Fri this year. I also listed improvements with PGR's and fairway agronomics as just a couple improvements over the 1981 open.
However, I'll summarize for you and John. I think the darkest period had nothing to do with fans but was related to John's beloved days of the (late 60's-80's, even early 90's in some cases) Crap architecture, over planting of trees, flowers, shrubs, building courses on sites where it's ridicuously difficult to grow grass, unmaintable features, lakes, lakes and more lakes......The list goes on for this era. Thank god it's over. Fans are a pittance to the stupidity of this era.
-
I'm going to ask a question that I already know the answer.
Which was the better course?
Merion during the 1981 U.S. Open or Merion during the 2013 U.S. Open?
We need to turn back to save the game.
JakaB,
So much of the answer is weather dependent.
I think you're also forgetting that budgets don't magically appear from out of nowhere.
They evolve over time.
And, each year budgets are scrutinized at several levels.
At the Green Committee
At the Finance Committee and at
The Board.
The budget is a guideline, a guestimate that reflects the intent of the membership.
It's the members who set the standards for the superintendent and staff and once the membership has set that standard, they have to fund that standard.
Your issue isn't with Superintendents, it's with the memberships.
-
Here is a good example for you. Here is Detroit in the early to Mid 2000's clubs would routinely be happy with green speeds around 10-10.5. 2005 our club and another high end club in detroit had a demonstration of a roller named the DMI speed roller. We threw it out for our members and they were blown away how much smoother and faster the greens became, yet we didn't lower the mowing height or injure the turf by doing more grooming etc. It added the cost of one operator which eventually was offset by other advantages rolling produced. Now everyone in Detroit has a speed roller or two because the members love the putting quality it offers. Is this good or bad, I consider it good since we added quality to the greens in the Detroit areas and it a lot of cases where guys were mowing super low to try to attain speeds, stressing grass more this tool allowed them to reverse that trend.
I see technology as the light at the end of John's tunnel, I'm not sure he does and certainly it's not coming fast enough for him. Sorry that's a big ramble.
And seven years later you regrass all your greens. I agree that if you are going to roll your greens during extreme heat you better buy yourself some fans.
Your clueless, we got hammered with winter damage in 2010. Club didn't like that we had 3 greens that took til early June to recover. Poa (susceptible to winter damage) Bentgrass (NOT) Your arguments are so bad John, I hope you pave better than this. However, with you logic every time I hit a pothole in Michigan I should tell you that your lazy.
-
Here is a good example for you. Here is Detroit in the early to Mid 2000's clubs would routinely be happy with green speeds around 10-10.5. 2005 our club and another high end club in detroit had a demonstration of a roller named the DMI speed roller. We threw it out for our members and they were blown away how much smoother and faster the greens became, yet we didn't lower the mowing height or injure the turf by doing more grooming etc. It added the cost of one operator which eventually was offset by other advantages rolling produced. Now everyone in Detroit has a speed roller or two because the members love the putting quality it offers. Is this good or bad, I consider it good since we added quality to the greens in the Detroit areas and it a lot of cases where guys were mowing super low to try to attain speeds, stressing grass more this tool allowed them to reverse that trend.
I see technology as the light at the end of John's tunnel, I'm not sure he does and certainly it's not coming fast enough for him. Sorry that's a big ramble.
And seven years later you regrass all your greens. I agree that if you are going to roll your greens during extreme heat you better buy yourself some fans.
Your clueless, we got hammered with winter damage in 2010. Club didn't like that we had 3 greens that took til early June to recover. Poa (susceptible to winter damage) Bentgrass (NOT) Your arguments are so bad John, I hope you pave better than this. However, with you logic every time I hit a pothole in Michigan I should tell you that your lazy.
Im still waiting for John to answer some of my questions or comment back and now hes blaming you and a roller for regressing greens? This thread is going to go into the GCAHOF.
-
Anthony,
I will answer one question then I am leaving to golf. Make it quick.
-
John
I've asked 10 over the last 2 days. Skip over all the gibberish you've written and answer mine or anyone questions.
-
I am the one being called a moronic bully when it comes to turf issues and then I am told that the over compaction of greens by constant rolling to achieve higher speeds has nothing to do with grass failure. Amazing.
-
John
I've asked 10 over the last 2 days. Skip over all the gibberish you've written and answer mine or anyone questions.
I will. When I am done golfing. That was your one question.
-
I am not sure what rollers have to do with fans but then again its John so I am not surprised.
Aaron its great they you were able to get rid of Poa and make your greens better for the long-term at your club. Every superintendent knows how difficult it is to manage Poa particularly in the Great Lakes with harsh winters.
Steve Blake
-
John
I've asked 10 over the last 2 days. Skip over all the gibberish you've written and answer mine or anyone questions.
I will. When I am done golfing. That was your one question.
But John, there was not a question in my reply.
-
I got an email from a Chicago based Superintendent named Justin VanLanduit. He is the Superintendent at Briarwood Country Club.Though not a GCA member, he asked if I would posting the following-
I’m not a member of GCA but I follow quite frequently. It’s a good learning experience; I’ve enjoyed seeing the different sides of discussions and have learned a good deal along the way. This latest thread regarding turf fans has brought to surface so many other issues greater than the fans itself. The greatest issue that I see is demand for conditions. We’ve all forced them ourselves, large majority of golfers wanting “Augusta or PGA Tour Televised” conditions and Superintendents ourselves for always pushing the envelope for better more pristine.
I’d first like to address the very first question on the thread; are clubs still purchasing fans? Yes they are, and I think more now than before. Just ask Precision or SubAir. Our club purchased 2 fans last fall and they were used for about two full weeks this summer. We purchased portable ones that are run by a generator, this was our selection as the cost to run power was too substantial and it gave us the ability to remove from the course when not needed. I’m not a fan of the look or the sound but I am a fan of the breeze they create and the positive respiration it helps create for the turf. Air movement is just like drainage and works with the drainage to create an environment better suited for turfgrass health. Fortunately the drain tile can be put underground and out of sight. If you had a green that wasn’t draining are you not going to install drainage cause you don’t like the look of a cleanout pipe covered with a drain grate or some catch basins around the greens to remove surface water?
Now the claim that fans are Superintendent driven, now that is a strong claim. Fans are driven by architecture, and golfer demand for quality conditions. Superintendents are there to maintain the architecture of the course and meet the standards of conditions set by the owner/board. Superintendents are asked to make recommendations to their club of what they feel is needed to maintain and achieve the standards that are set by the owner/board. The owner/board can always say no. Yes, the Superintendent makes the recommendation to the owner/board that a fan would benefit the green if they choose not to go that route that’s their choice. Now if the green fails, who is on the hook? Not the owner or board, the Superintendent.
I will use my 2 fans that I purchased last fall as an example. Our clubs standards are high, although I feel I am given a bit more leniency to dial things back if nature dictates. Although, it’s not to say that I don’t hear it from members if I slow greens down or do what’s necessary to get through a stretch of weather. 2 greens on our course are tucked into corners, and when I say corner I mean corner. On the west side of 1 green I have a highly used road about 20 yards from the back right edge of the green and then a house about 30 yards from the back left of the green. The house nor the road the members want to see or hear so fencing and landscaping are our protection. Predominant winds in the summer for us are out of the southwest. Tree removal and shrub removal is not an option for me, the only option available for us for air movement is artificial. So in this case how am I the Superintendent driving the fan? I’m put in charge to keep the greens to the standard the membership desires and I’m to implement the tools in doing so thus requiring a fan. The other site was very similar but the house is about 20 yards west of the green and a large mound is placed to the southwest of the green, the mound has been reduced to help a bit.
In any job you utilize your tools available to meet deadlines, expectations, etc… Some companies have fancy software programs that have helped them increase quality and efficiency where a similar product company with not as many employees does it without the high tech software. They both have the common goal of creating or keeping business but I’m sure the one with the high tech software has a bigger bottom line. They are utilizing the tools and resources they have available to meet their goal although the one has a higher say “quota” to meet than the other so the software is necessary to meet that goal. Another example is say you are asked to dig a hole that must be a certain diameter and depth. I think you’d have a better shot at meeting those exact measurements if you had a pointed shovel, spade, trench shovel, and flat shovel rather than just having a pointed shovel.
The bottom line is Superintendents use tools available to achieve the standards they are asked to meet. Some standards are greater than others thus the choice of tools and the desire for tools are different. No Superintendent wants to see dead grass, I’m sure I am accurate in saying they feel and take it personal that they failed at their job if there is dead grass. Heck, I’ve seen Superintendents empty the clubhouse ice machine to put ice out on Poa greens when the weather has been so hot, or put dry ice in front of fans around greens to cool the surface. Mother Nature is a bitch to deal with at times, Superintendents try to control every situation possible when it comes to growing grass but at times we are at her mercy, and that is where we reach to different measures to grow grass, barely healthy grass at times just to see the break in the weather pattern and things can recover.
And by the way, Medinah has fans some stationary some portable and they were used up to just before the Ryder Cup. Helped them keep the turf healthy to handle the pressure put on them during the event.
-
Question for the Supers. It seems like a lot of the blame for the fans and higher green speeds that in turn require fans is being laid on the expectations of members. If you believe that the course would be better maintained and healthier, not to mention possibly cheaper, with higher mowing heights, brown in the fairways, removal of trees etc, do you feel an obligation to try and educate the members or the green chairman? I guess this may have been a better question on Don's thread about speaking up, but instead of installing fans based upon the unrealistic demands of people who have never maintained a golf course, is education of the members a possibility?
-
I got an email from a Chicago based Superintendent named Justin VanLanduit. He is the Superintendent at Briarwood Country Club.Though not a GCA member, he asked if I would posting the following-
I’m not a member of GCA but I follow quite frequently. It’s a good learning experience; I’ve enjoyed seeing the different sides of discussions and have learned a good deal along the way. This latest thread regarding turf fans has brought to surface so many other issues greater than the fans itself. The greatest issue that I see is demand for conditions. We’ve all forced them ourselves, large majority of golfers wanting “Augusta or PGA Tour Televised” conditions and Superintendents ourselves for always pushing the envelope for better more pristine.
I’d first like to address the very first question on the thread; are clubs still purchasing fans? Yes they are, and I think more now than before. Just ask Precision or SubAir. Our club purchased 2 fans last fall and they were used for about two full weeks this summer. We purchased portable ones that are run by a generator, this was our selection as the cost to run power was too substantial and it gave us the ability to remove from the course when not needed. I’m not a fan of the look or the sound but I am a fan of the breeze they create and the positive respiration it helps create for the turf. Air movement is just like drainage and works with the drainage to create an environment better suited for turfgrass health. Fortunately the drain tile can be put underground and out of sight. If you had a green that wasn’t draining are you not going to install drainage cause you don’t like the look of a cleanout pipe covered with a drain grate or some catch basins around the greens to remove surface water?
Now the claim that fans are Superintendent driven, now that is a strong claim. Fans are driven by architecture, and golfer demand for quality conditions. Superintendents are there to maintain the architecture of the course and meet the standards of conditions set by the owner/board. Superintendents are asked to make recommendations to their club of what they feel is needed to maintain and achieve the standards that are set by the owner/board. The owner/board can always say no. Yes, the Superintendent makes the recommendation to the owner/board that a fan would benefit the green if they choose not to go that route that’s their choice. Now if the green fails, who is on the hook? Not the owner or board, the Superintendent.
I will use my 2 fans that I purchased last fall as an example. Our clubs standards are high, although I feel I am given a bit more leniency to dial things back if nature dictates. Although, it’s not to say that I don’t hear it from members if I slow greens down or do what’s necessary to get through a stretch of weather. 2 greens on our course are tucked into corners, and when I say corner I mean corner. On the west side of 1 green I have a highly used road about 20 yards from the back right edge of the green and then a house about 30 yards from the back left of the green. The house nor the road the members want to see or hear so fencing and landscaping are our protection. Predominant winds in the summer for us are out of the southwest. Tree removal and shrub removal is not an option for me, the only option available for us for air movement is artificial. So in this case how am I the Superintendent driving the fan? I’m put in charge to keep the greens to the standard the membership desires and I’m to implement the tools in doing so thus requiring a fan. The other site was very similar but the house is about 20 yards west of the green and a large mound is placed to the southwest of the green, the mound has been reduced to help a bit.
In any job you utilize your tools available to meet deadlines, expectations, etc… Some companies have fancy software programs that have helped them increase quality and efficiency where a similar product company with not as many employees does it without the high tech software. They both have the common goal of creating or keeping business but I’m sure the one with the high tech software has a bigger bottom line. They are utilizing the tools and resources they have available to meet their goal although the one has a higher say “quota” to meet than the other so the software is necessary to meet that goal. Another example is say you are asked to dig a hole that must be a certain diameter and depth. I think you’d have a better shot at meeting those exact measurements if you had a pointed shovel, spade, trench shovel, and flat shovel rather than just having a pointed shovel.
The bottom line is Superintendents use tools available to achieve the standards they are asked to meet. Some standards are greater than others thus the choice of tools and the desire for tools are different. No Superintendent wants to see dead grass, I’m sure I am accurate in saying they feel and take it personal that they failed at their job if there is dead grass. Heck, I’ve seen Superintendents empty the clubhouse ice machine to put ice out on Poa greens when the weather has been so hot, or put dry ice in front of fans around greens to cool the surface. Mother Nature is a bitch to deal with at times, Superintendents try to control every situation possible when it comes to growing grass but at times we are at her mercy, and that is where we reach to different measures to grow grass, barely healthy grass at times just to see the break in the weather pattern and things can recover.
And by the way, Medinah has fans some stationary some portable and they were used up to just before the Ryder Cup. Helped them keep the turf healthy to handle the pressure put on them during the event.
^^^^^^^^ What he said!
-
Oh no rollers are killing greens !! I can say from experience that rollers have helped SAVE greens and not kill them!! I can say so on many, many fronts.
How about the positives to rolling:
1.) Decrease in pesticide use.
2.) Potential labor saving on days that you only roll and not mow.
3.) Increased smoothness of the putting surface.
4.) USE rollers in stressful periods in lieu of mowing, yes John I do roll greens in 100 degree heat however our mowers remain parked the shed. This practice is more practical since mowing in more injurious than rolling.
5.) Increase in ball roll.
6.) Increase in firmness.
7.) Ability to raise the height of cut with mowers when rolling to achieve as good of results in ball roll and smoothness.
8.) Did mention labor savings??
The only real downside to rolling that I have encountered is perimeter management where rollers stop and start which most of the time is not on the putting surface but in the collar or rough.The past 2 seasons I went from rolling 3-4 days a week to rolling 7 days a week with no side effects despite record heat in 2012 and all the benefits to the turf and happy members.
I’m sure there are more positives but I think we all get the point. It seems John needs to learn what benefits rollers can provide to the overall product and HEALTH of the turf on which he is playing.
Steve Blake
-
Question for the Supers. It seems like a lot of the blame for the fans and higher green speeds that in turn require fans is being laid on the expectations of members. If you believe that the course would be better maintained and healthier, not to mention possibly cheaper, with higher mowing heights, brown in the fairways, removal of trees etc, do you feel an obligation to try and educate the members or the green chairman? I guess this may have been a better question on Don's thread about speaking up, but instead of installing fans based upon the unrealistic demands of people who have never maintained a golf course, is education of the members a possibility?
Here in lies the problem, we as Superintendents are hired as the experts and when no one wants to listen to what the expert has to say or the consequences that can occur that is the fight. At my club I have 450 "experts" that will question my every agronomic decision most of them get it when the facts are given, but 10% never will or will never want to get it. You can't educate people who do not want to be educated!
-
Keith; I am not a super although I work closely with the talented young man, Justin VanLanduit who recently chimed in; I am one of those who makes sure he has sufficient leeway because we recognize how good he is at what he does. But your inquiry makes a critical assumption; that the course would be "better" if maintained differently. It might be easier to maintain. It might be cheaper to maintain. It might play somewhat differently. But "better" is subjective and as almost all of the supers have commented, it is the members/owners who set the standards. At our club we consult with Justin as to the reasonableness of our standards and the costs associated but in the end, the members decide what they want and how much they will pay. Unless they (we) are demanding the impossible, the super follows through. In discussing that which is possible and the costs, we get educated. But in the end, the members set the standards.
-
Question for the Supers. It seems like a lot of the blame for the fans and higher green speeds that in turn require fans is being laid on the expectations of members. If you believe that the course would be better maintained and healthier, not to mention possibly cheaper, with higher mowing heights, brown in the fairways, removal of trees etc, do you feel an obligation to try and educate the members or the green chairman? I guess this may have been a better question on Don's thread about speaking up, but instead of installing fans based upon the unrealistic demands of people who have never maintained a golf course, is education of the members a possibility?
Keith, we educate our members constantly but here are just a couple quick points. I've been educating my members on ball marks longer than I care to remember, they still can't fix one correctly, yet they constantly ask what's up with the ball marks. Carts, can you please keep carts 30 feet from greens and tees (think they can accomplish this difficult feat???) NOPE! I never stop trying to educate them on everything we do and why we do it to meet the expectations they desire and believe me we hear a lot of desires but what hope do you have to clue these folks in on real agronomic principles when they can't do something as simple as fix a ball mark properly.
Members drive the bus, I just try to keep it running for them.
-
While I recognize the difference in private versus non-private clubs, isn't the ultimate user subject to the same syndromes ?
Don't the users of non-private clubs watch the PGA Tour on TV and thirst for the conditions they observe ?
Or is someone going to tell me that non-private golfers don't watch TV and don't want to see their course emulate the courses of the PGA Tour ?
Same as home ownership versus renter mentality. The one is invested in their property (literally), and the other is not. No comparison for how they are kept up. The only difference is you can make money on your home. Unless the golf club is for business, there is no ROI for golf clubs. Thus the economics have turned against the private club market. Pride only goes so far when there is no ROI.
-
Keith; I am not a super although I work closely with the talented young man, Justin VanLanduit who recently chimed in; I am one of those who makes sure he has sufficient leeway because we recognize how good he is at what he does. But your inquiry amakes a critical assumption; that the course would be "better" if maintained differently. It might be easier to maintain. It might be cheaper to maintain. It might play somewhat differently. But "better" is subjective and as almost all of the supers have commented, it is the members/owners who set the standards. At our club we consult with Justin as to the reasonableness of our standards and the costs associated but in the end, the members decide what they want and how much they will pay. Unless they (we) are demanding the impossible, the super follows through. In discussing that which is possible and the costs, we get educated. But in the end, the members set the standards.
This is how it should be done. You are lucky to have him.
-
Keith; I am not a super although I work closely with the talented young man, Justin VanLanduit who recently chimed in; I am one of those who makes sure he has sufficient leeway because we recognize how good he is at what he does. But your inquiry amakes a critical assumption; that the course would be "better" if maintained differently. It might be easier to maintain. It might be cheaper to maintain. It might play somewhat differently. But "better" is subjective and as almost all of the supers have commented, it is the members/owners who set the standards. At our club we consult with Justin as to the reasonableness of our standards and the costs associated but in the end, the members decide what they want and how much they will pay. Unless they (we) are demanding the impossible, the super follows through. In discussing that which is possible and the costs, we get educated. But in the end, the members set the standards.
Excellent member and my guess is you've probably been a greens chairman or close. It's always easy to complain from the cheap seats.
-
I would guess Justin is every bit as lucky to have Shelly as Shelly (and Briarwood) is to have Justin.
That's really the point. A clear open dialogue between the superintendent and a representative of the membership will keep everyone on the same page.
This thread did spawn a side conversation I'd love to observe (because I can't contribute knowledgeably)...is sand really the ideal medium to grow grass/turf on? What are the pros and cons of heavy sand programs?
-
Jim that is a great topic that I have been interested in for years. We know Old Tom said "sand, sand, and more sand". Top dressing has really helped our place and Mike Keiser only want s to build on sand. But is the California method the best for greens? Should there be some organic material and how much? I suppose that could be a different thread and is less architecture and more greenkeeping. For the architects; which is the easiest medium to work with?
-
I think Briarwood is one of the top courses in the country. I feel for Justin having to follow one of the finest supers to ever practice his craft. Portable fans a couple of weeks a year are not my concern.
Side note: The modern furniture collection in the clubhouse is museum quality.
I went by the house to change into my golfing attire and caught my son watching Gone With the Wind. The irony forced me to grab a beer and join in.
-
Invite him to watch Casablanca with you. Its worked for 2 generations in my family
-
Keith, we educate our members constantly but here are just a couple quick points. I've been educating my members on ball marks longer than I care to remember, they still can't fix one correctly, yet they constantly ask what's up with the ball marks. Carts, can you please keep carts 30 feet from greens and tees (think they can accomplish this difficult feat???) NOPE! I never stop trying to educate them on everything we do and why we do it to meet the expectations they desire and believe me we hear a lot of desires but what hope do you have to clue these folks in on real agronomic principles when they can't do something as simple as fix a ball mark properly.
Members drive the bus, I just try to keep it running for them.
Anthony,
I fixed a minimum of three, plus my own, on every green today.
-
Same as home ownership versus renter mentality.
The one is invested in their property (literally), and the other is not.
No comparison for how they are kept up.
The only difference is you can make money on your home.
Unless the golf club is for business, there is no ROI for golf clubs.
Thus the economics have turned against the private club market. Pride only goes so far when there is no ROI.
Mike Sweeney,
You're confusing "care of the course" with "expectations for the course"
The non-private golfer has his expectations "framed" by the PGA Tour events he sees on TV, the same as the private member.
The weekly bombardment of pristine conditions and super fast greens influences all golfers, private and non-private, some more than others.
-
Same as home ownership versus renter mentality.
The one is invested in their property (literally), and the other is not.
No comparison for how they are kept up.
The only difference is you can make money on your home.
Unless the golf club is for business, there is no ROI for golf clubs.
Thus the economics have turned against the private club market. Pride only goes so far when there is no ROI.
Mike Sweeney,
You're confusing "care of the course" with "expectations for the course"
The non-private golfer has his expectations "framed" by the PGA Tour events he sees on TV, the same as the private member.
The weekly bombardment of pristine conditions and super fast greens influences all golfers, private and non-private, some more than others.
I do not have a single friend that ignorant. This phantom demographic has been created by those in power to perpetuate their importance, be they greens chairmen or supers. If they ever did exist they have long since quit the game.
-
Same as home ownership versus renter mentality.
The one is invested in their property (literally), and the other is not.
No comparison for how they are kept up.
The only difference is you can make money on your home.
Unless the golf club is for business, there is no ROI for golf clubs.
Thus the economics have turned against the private club market. Pride only goes so far when there is no ROI.
Mike Sweeney,
You're confusing "care of the course" with "expectations for the course"
The non-private golfer has his expectations "framed" by the PGA Tour events he sees on TV, the same as the private member.
The weekly bombardment of pristine conditions and super fast greens influences all golfers, private and non-private, some more than others.
I do not have a single friend that ignorant. This phantom demographic has been created by those in power to perpetuate their importance, be they greens chairmen or supers. If they ever did exist they have long since quit the game.
JakaB,
Are you sure that you only played golf ?
Those in power only do the bidding of the membership.
If they didn't, they'd be dislodged from power.
You've been around, at how many membership clubs does a rogue Green Chair or Superintendent last ?
Not very long.
The Green Chair and Super may head their committee/department, but, if they go against the will of the membership, they won't be in power long.
-
I got an email from a Chicago based Superintendent named Justin VanLanduit. He is the Superintendent at Briarwood Country Club.Though not a GCA member, he asked if I would posting the following-
I’m not a member of GCA but I follow quite frequently. It’s a good learning experience; I’ve enjoyed seeing the different sides of discussions and have learned a good deal along the way. This latest thread regarding turf fans has brought to surface so many other issues greater than the fans itself. The greatest issue that I see is demand for conditions. We’ve all forced them ourselves, large majority of golfers wanting “Augusta or PGA Tour Televised” conditions and Superintendents ourselves for always pushing the envelope for better more pristine.
I’d first like to address the very first question on the thread; are clubs still purchasing fans? Yes they are, and I think more now than before. Just ask Precision or SubAir. Our club purchased 2 fans last fall and they were used for about two full weeks this summer. We purchased portable ones that are run by a generator, this was our selection as the cost to run power was too substantial and it gave us the ability to remove from the course when not needed. I’m not a fan of the look or the sound but I am a fan of the breeze they create and the positive respiration it helps create for the turf. Air movement is just like drainage and works with the drainage to create an environment better suited for turfgrass health. Fortunately the drain tile can be put underground and out of sight. If you had a green that wasn’t draining are you not going to install drainage cause you don’t like the look of a cleanout pipe covered with a drain grate or some catch basins around the greens to remove surface water?
Now the claim that fans are Superintendent driven, now that is a strong claim. Fans are driven by architecture, and golfer demand for quality conditions. Superintendents are there to maintain the architecture of the course and meet the standards of conditions set by the owner/board. Superintendents are asked to make recommendations to their club of what they feel is needed to maintain and achieve the standards that are set by the owner/board. The owner/board can always say no. Yes, the Superintendent makes the recommendation to the owner/board that a fan would benefit the green if they choose not to go that route that’s their choice. Now if the green fails, who is on the hook? Not the owner or board, the Superintendent.
I will use my 2 fans that I purchased last fall as an example. Our clubs standards are high, although I feel I am given a bit more leniency to dial things back if nature dictates. Although, it’s not to say that I don’t hear it from members if I slow greens down or do what’s necessary to get through a stretch of weather. 2 greens on our course are tucked into corners, and when I say corner I mean corner. On the west side of 1 green I have a highly used road about 20 yards from the back right edge of the green and then a house about 30 yards from the back left of the green. The house nor the road the members want to see or hear so fencing and landscaping are our protection. Predominant winds in the summer for us are out of the southwest. Tree removal and shrub removal is not an option for me, the only option available for us for air movement is artificial. So in this case how am I the Superintendent driving the fan? I’m put in charge to keep the greens to the standard the membership desires and I’m to implement the tools in doing so thus requiring a fan. The other site was very similar but the house is about 20 yards west of the green and a large mound is placed to the southwest of the green, the mound has been reduced to help a bit.
In any job you utilize your tools available to meet deadlines, expectations, etc… Some companies have fancy software programs that have helped them increase quality and efficiency where a similar product company with not as many employees does it without the high tech software. They both have the common goal of creating or keeping business but I’m sure the one with the high tech software has a bigger bottom line. They are utilizing the tools and resources they have available to meet their goal although the one has a higher say “quota” to meet than the other so the software is necessary to meet that goal. Another example is say you are asked to dig a hole that must be a certain diameter and depth. I think you’d have a better shot at meeting those exact measurements if you had a pointed shovel, spade, trench shovel, and flat shovel rather than just having a pointed shovel.
The bottom line is Superintendents use tools available to achieve the standards they are asked to meet. Some standards are greater than others thus the choice of tools and the desire for tools are different. No Superintendent wants to see dead grass, I’m sure I am accurate in saying they feel and take it personal that they failed at their job if there is dead grass. Heck, I’ve seen Superintendents empty the clubhouse ice machine to put ice out on Poa greens when the weather has been so hot, or put dry ice in front of fans around greens to cool the surface. Mother Nature is a bitch to deal with at times, Superintendents try to control every situation possible when it comes to growing grass but at times we are at her mercy, and that is where we reach to different measures to grow grass, barely healthy grass at times just to see the break in the weather pattern and things can recover.
And by the way, Medinah has fans some stationary some portable and they were used up to just before the Ryder Cup. Helped them keep the turf healthy to handle the pressure put on them during the event.
What he said!!!
Keith; I am not a super although I work closely with the talented young man, Justin VanLanduit who recently chimed in; I am one of those who makes sure he has sufficient leeway because we recognize how good he is at what he does. But your inquiry makes a critical assumption; that the course would be "better" if maintained differently. It might be easier to maintain. It might be cheaper to maintain. It might play somewhat differently. But "better" is subjective and as almost all of the supers have commented, it is the members/owners who set the standards. At our club we consult with Justin as to the reasonableness of our standards and the costs associated but in the end, the members decide what they want and how much they will pay. Unless they (we) are demanding the impossible, the super follows through. In discussing that which is possible and the costs, we get educated. But in the end, the members set the standards.
And what he said!!!
-
Happy Thanksgiving to all the hard working supers who have played a vital role in my enjoyment of the game over the last 45 years. I am very thankful of your efforts and sacrifices.