Golf's agronomics---the $64,000 question

[TEPaul]

"Honestly, I wasn't accusing you of anything.....just making satrical remarks on your satire."

Me too!

I just can't use smileys any more--Dan Kelly doesn't like them with an attempt at humor!

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I grew up playing municipal golf and Hamilton's comments are right on.  How do you think muni courses are maintained?  I was just over to see one the other day and you would be hard pressed to find a ball mark anywhere on one of those greens - rock hard.

Let's not forget where the far majority of golf is played - on the public golf courses where maintenance budgets are well less than half what the resort and CC clubs spend.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

All I'm saying is if you can find me some municipal golf course that both looks and plays like Troon during the British Open (when obviously Hamilton saw and played Troon) I want to go play that municipal course! I've seen plenty of municipal courses in the states in my life and not a one of them reminded me of what I saw at Troon! If hard and fast is the only similarity you or Hamiltion is referring to between US municipal courses and Royal Troon, forgetaboutit!

[ForkaB]

I'd be very surprised if Troon's maintenance budget (for two 18 hole courses and a childrens course) is as much as $1 million.  As Pat Mucci says, weather and the land make links courses largely self-maintainable.  Nor is there, in most cases, the seemingly insatiable American desire for "beauty" and perfection.

[TEPaul]

"Nor is there, in most cases, the seemingly insatiable American desire for "beauty" and perfection."

Rich:

That's probably the key to much of the budget differences. I don't think the agronomies of many American courses are as "naturally sustainable" as most of the European courses agronomies are--and agronomies that aren't as naturally sustainable cost more to maintain. At least that seemed to be the point of Peter Thomson during that wonderful Sunday commentary he did last year at the Heineken at Royal Melbourne when he spoke of how the old greenkeeper who used to maintain the more naturally occuring or naturally sustainable grasses and other natural vegetation did things compared to the way they are now. Thompson said the course (fairways and greens?) and such may not have been as pretty as they are now but they played great nevertheless.

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

  I'm in late on this one as I was away for the weekend but it is a very interesting topic. Here is my take on the original question.  If the Golden era architects mentioned could come back today I think they would have very mixed feelings about todays maintenance practices. Someone like Flynn may appreciate the science and research efforts that have taken place over the last 30 years. Ross as well would be interested in the science but to a lesser degree. I think he would feel it was all just a little to much effort that we go throught to prepare our modern courses.  Can anyone really imagine what McKenzie would think if he saw ANGC today? ANGC surely has changed since the 40's and 50's when it appears there was more rough and raggedy edged bunkers than today.

   As was pointed out earlier the one common theme with most of the old writtings on golf architecture is that a golf course is to be natural. I would go one step futher and say that if you desire naturalness you must also desire randomness.  Maybe even a  little luck should be allowed to come into play as well. Isn't this what really separates true links golf from park golf? The quirky lie or the lucky roll off a hill adds much interest and creates room for imagination from the player. It makes the game multidemensional.

   It's possible that modern maintenance has evolved into an effort of removing ramdoness from the golf courses. Take luck out of the game. A well struck shot should produce a predictable result.  As mentioned earlier uniformidy and consistency are not natural. Yet every day we in golf maintenace are instructed that our golf course should be consistent. Make the greens all roll the same. Make the rough all one kind of grass at one height of cut. There should not be a bad lie in the fairway. The bunkers should be uniform and fair. We have brought the golf course much more into focus in the last 30 years.

    And for those who think it already cost to much for golf consider the following. It is not uncommon to find golf courses today maintaning their fairways at higher standards than that same golf course maintained it's greens 20 years ago. "The next level" keeps going up. I'd don't see it slowing down.

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Many of us on here tend to assume theoretical extremes on this huge subject of golf architecture and its maintenance, even when it comes to facts from long ago which some of us just make assumptions about, probably to serve some purpose of some extreme point we might be trying to make.

Your post there is one of the most level-headed and logical I've seen come down the pike in a long time.

Thanks

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
Doesn't better conditioning automatically imply some of the "luck" as you say, will be taken out of the game.  Why that is a surprise to anyone, I don't know.  What did we expect to happen as agronomy improved?
Mark

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

Mark,

   I agree.  When did the word "consistency" start being used in relationship to golf course conditioning? When did golf need to be 'fair". Probably about the same time when so many golden era designs were changed because; that bunker is too penal, that tall grass slows down play, this bunker is not nesassary because only a poorly hit shot goes there.

   I've always felt that there was has cultural change in our approach to golf following WWII. More people had time and money for golf. With many new golfers we had the money to find faster and beter ways of doing things to maintain the course. The erra of mechanization and productivity.  We also had better fertilizer and pesticides following WWII. I think the biggest factor was the type of new customer and the increased volume of play. We started planting trees because it gave the illusion of privacy, separation of holes became important for safey and maintenance had to be done quicker.
The other big factor is money. As the value of the game went up the market for improved products became a reality. Agriculture reserch boomed and grass benefited along with other crops.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It's funny how we keep going back to ANGC when talking about things.....when its an exception to the norm.  If we wonder about luck in the game, then we must concede that the PGA Tour dictates reduced luck, as it seems to the competitors that it will better ensure the best player wins that week.  Of course, I don't know where a Todd Hamilton outdueling Els at the British fits into that.....

Anyway, when discussing agronomics, why don't we forget ANGC for a while.  I just dropped my son off at his first AGJA event, and happened to see the superintendent, so I introduced myself.  During discussions, he mentioned his budget was $300,000, and even that was subject to cuts if the revenue numbers didn't come in any given month.....

That, I think is the reality at most of the courses we play.  That is the reality for about 16,500 out of the 17,000 courses in the US today!  Does talking about the exceptions, like ANGC further this excellent topic?

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
That is my point as well.  I was just at a property that has two public golf courses and the maintenance budget is less than half what our budget is at Lehigh.  Actually it is amazing what some Superintendents can do on such smaller budgets.  

Most golf courses are not over maintained and we often forget that.  I guess I'm as guilty as anyone because of where I get to play around the country but we have to remember that for the most part, we are only talking about an EXTREMELY small percentage of golf courses on this site.  And they are almost all at the high end of the spectrum.

Having said that, the quality of the architecture on these other courses is another matter.  That is where I think the focus of more of the discussion here should be.  I have been getting involved with a number of these type courses of late and it is amazing what can be done to make them more architecturally interesting (without spending a lot of money).  
Mark

[frank_D]

brother TEPaul

one thing the same today as then is wind and weather conditions and they certainly looked as golf played under "full conditions" as REAL GOLF which is documented in their opinions and statements

so i don't think they would be impressed by magic grass or pristine and sanitary conditions as real golf courses to be taken seriously

it seems they wanted a round to be as harsh and challenging a test of endurance against nature as possible - maybe its the scottish temperament

one thing for sure a scot would never consider paying the sums of money to maintain magic grass