Building vs. Maintaining?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I am not necessarily taking a position nor placing blame as much as stating a fact.  I'm sure you must realize the influence (good or bad) that the top clubs have on other golf courses.  

Did for example, Oakmont taking down trees have an influence on other clubs?  Did Pine Valley doing the same have any influence?  I have sat in many committee meetings all over the world and have listened to members talk about "what the other clubs are doing, etc." and it is all relative but usually lead by the leaders/top clubs in their respective areas.  

My main point (so it is clear) is that good or bad, the standards these courses set, have an influence.  They are role models!  

By the way, if St. Andrews decides to plant trees all over their golf course and rebuild all their greens to USGA specs, (will that have an influence)  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

The fact of that influence is well known.  Is your main point really just to state that?  some of the influences are very positive and some are not applicable and some are negative.  That seems obvious.  If there is a problem with some of the influences, whose problem is it?

The influence, both good and bad is manifested in a response by other independent club entities and it is their responsibility to do things right for their membership and golf course and accept the consequences if they get it wrong.  What good does pointing fingers at other clubs with different dynamics?


"By the way, if St. Andrews decides to plant trees all over their golf course and rebuild all their greens to USGA specs, (will that have an influence)"

The influence on me would be that I would not renew my membership in the St. Andrews Golf Club.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe your last response sums it up    Clubs of certain stature, need to look at the impact of their actions beyond what it does for just themselves and their members.  They are role models that others will follow.    

When I first met with Cherry Hills, I told them you can either redesign and rebuild your golf course and forget some of your history, or you can seek to restore many of the great features that have been lost over time.  But whatever you decide, understand that it will have an impact not only on your membership, but on what many other clubs do around the country and around the world.  

I believe, (whether I am right or wrong), that some special clubs, those with high exposure and/or a long standing heritage, have an obligation to the game of golf, as much as they do to their own membership.  The direction they take will have an influence and set standards for others.  They are role models and they need to understand the consequences of their actions beyond just what it is to themselves.  

[Mark_Fine]

Getting back to the main thread - can great golf courses that have been built inexpensively (and many good ones have been built this way in many diverse areas), be maintained in a similar vain?  

[wsmorrison]

"Maybe your last response sums it up    Clubs of certain stature, need to look at the impact of their actions beyond what it does for just themselves and their members.  They are role models that others will follow."

I won't distract from this thread after this final post.  I do NOT believe clubs need to make internal decisions taking into account what the impact of those decisions are at other courses.  They are NOT role models and other clubs shouldn't look to them as such.    If they do mistakenly look at them as role models, the clubs that make them that are responsible for their actions.  

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I agree with your thoughts that each individual club is responsible for it's own actions and clubs such as Merion have no obligation to answer to anyone other than themselves.

Mark,
I think you mention that many clubs have 7 figure budgets....How do you define many?  I agree there are some but IMHO not many.  Out of 17000 golf courses in the US I would guestimate that no more than 20 courses per state(average per state) at the most have 7 figure budgets which would equate to 1000 out of 17000.  I do know some of the larger turf equipment suppliers grade courses as A, B or C in terms of maintenance budgets and they estimate there are no more than 3500 A courses.  Now having said this I would assume that part of the "experience" at a top course also assumes much less traffic than a normal course and in so doing I would guestimate that the average rounds per year at one of these 7 figure budgets is 15,000 rounds at the most and if there are 1000 of these then only 15 million rounds per year are played on 7 figure budgets out of 320 million rounds of golf per year.  Or we could estimate using the different "golfer definitons" that less than 1 million of the 24 million golfers play on a 7 figure maintenance course in a year.
Fact ......golf does not survive on 7 figure maintenance budgets yet they will always exist and should exist....however if golf is to maintain or grow it has to be able to justify it's existence as a golf course or club not as an amenity to Real Estate because the developer has no interest once the lots are sold.....AND one would be surprised how many mom and pop operations make a very good living while land banking a nice piece of land on budgets of less than $350000.  And in most cases without the expertise of the so called management companies and associations that have tried to take golf corporate, or public or whatever the trade journals call it.  And all of this takes plac e in silence because the individual owners are not needing to advetise nationally or even regionally...they don't have the time to come to "golf development seminars" and tell everyone "how they do it" ...they just get it done....same as many other small business owners in other businesses throughout te US.....they survive.....the "BIG" experts are the joke and the problem with this industry.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I think the number with seven figure budgets is much higher than you suggest but you are correct that the far majority of courses work with a much smaller budget.  Maybe I should read you post more closely, but the question was more along the lines of how many of what we would call great golf courses, operate on those lower tighter budgets?  

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I think the number with seven figure budgets is much higher than you suggest but you are correct that the far majority of courses work with a much smaller budget.  Maybe I should read you post more closely, but the question was more along the lines of how many of what we would call great golf courses, operate on those lower tighter budgets?  

Mark,
We can disagree on that.....I don't know where you live but here in GA I think 20 would be a good number and then I would think there are other states that would not have 5 and a few states that would have close to 100...so I don't know....
IMHO the majority of golfers in the US equate greatness with maintenance much more than architecture.....thus when you do have a proven great golf course I would say ZERO operate on lower tighter budgets.....I would also say that very nice CLUBS with less than great COURSES do the same......much like mediocre restaurants with great decorators and thus the clients walk away thinking the food is better than it is......

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I'm back in the Northest corridor and you would be amazed how many clubs have very high budgets.  I agree with you about many equating "greatness with maintenace much more so than architecture".  Think about how many times you ask someone about a golf course and the first thing they comment on is the conditioning.  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I just don't buy your implication that clubs like Merion should stop doing what they're doing because some think they set a bad example on maintenance costs.

Some people have the resource to buy a Ferrari and just because others go into too much debt trying to emulate them will never mean to me they should get rid of their Ferrari because others can't afford one but try. I'm of the school of thought that all clubs need to be responsible for what they have and that includes the money and resources to do what they want. If they ain't got those resources I don't believe a Merion should feel they need to tell them that (even though Matt Shaeffer probably will if they ask him) or stop doing what they're doing because somebody might try to emulate them who can't afford to.

If you're all over the world in committee meetings that's what I would be saying if I were you, and not lobbying that a course like Merion ceases to do what they do because some think its a bad example.

What you're saying is you don't think anyone should do what a Merion is doing even if they have the money and know how to use it to get something they want and I think that's bullshit.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

When it comes to something like this thing I call the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" (basically a dedicated program of firm and fast), I'm very sorry to say that in some cases it probably costs more and a lot more.

Here's what I mean by that and it's something I really came to realize the extent of this last summer.

Clubs can get into dedicated firm and fast programs but they need to realize that at certain times in the summer and particularly under extreme weather conditions (heat) they are just going to get a certain amount of turf loss and some real dormancy.

This is the reality of "browning out" which is such a controversial subject and condition. Browning out is in two basic forms---eg dormany and turf loss.

Clubs that are into dedicated firm and fast programs that don't  have big budgets get into a form of "managed turf loss" in those times of summer conditions.

Courses like Merion East, Oakmont, Aronimink, Pine Valley etc in this area don't really get into browning out even when they maintain those firm and fast conditions (Ideal Maintenance Meld) through these tough weather times. They remain really firm and fast but the worst the color gets is a form of light green. I call it the "light green sheen".

The reason they can do that is massive syringing instead of the regular form of irrigating.

And the reality is that massive syringing eats up maintenance dollars bigtime---huge. Those clubs have huge crews and they are on those courses like hawks all the time in those tough times just cooling the grass down.

Other clubs don't have that type of man-power and consequently can't do that kind of massive syringing.

So the best they can do is get into "managing turf loss" with dormancy and controled plant death.

The likes of Merion, Oakmont and Aronimink don't have to do that because of their budgets and crews and syringing.

In my opinion, it is simply up to any club that wants to go down this road to understand this stuff and the differences between the two.

My membership didn't really understand that last summer and they wanted to know why our course browned out like it did in August and Merion, Aronimink, Oakmont and Pine Valley didn't.

My answer to them was if they want to double our maintenance budget we will do the same thing those clubs do.

I think they understood that.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Paul,
You stated that:

"I just don't buy your implication that clubs like Merion should stop doing what they're doing because some think they set a bad example on maintenance costs."

Don't read between the lines as I never said Merion or any other club should stop doing what they are doing.  What I said was that they are leading by example and they do have a big influence.  But maybe you are right and the top clubs should just worry about themselves and forget their influence and leadership roles.   I'll give that some more thought.

Regarding what you call ideal maintenance meld; if it in some cases as you say "probably costs more and a lot more", what do you tell clubs seeking and/or trying to establish an ideal maintenance meld?  Should you tell them that an ideal maintenance meld should be based on "the architecture" or based on "what the club can afford"?  Seems on this site we tend to critize courses that are not "set up properly for their architecture".  Could it be that it is too expensive for them to maintain it that way and we tend to forget that part of the equation?  This was in part the gist of this thread.  Do top clubs have to spend a zillion dollars to reach their ideal maintenance meld?

[TEPaul]

"Regarding what you call ideal maintenance meld; if it in some cases as you say "probably costs more and a lot more", what do you tell clubs seeking and/or trying to establish an ideal maintenance meld?  Should you tell them that an ideal maintenance meld should be based on "the architecture" or based on "what the club can afford"?  Seems on this site we tend to critize courses that are not "set up properly for their architecture".  Could it be that it is too expensive for them to maintain it that way and we tend to forget that part of the equation?  This was in part the gist of this thread.  Do top clubs have to spend a zillion dollars to reach their ideal maintenance meld?"

What I now tell them, Mark, is what they can realistically expect it to be and to look like given what they have and what they are thinking of doing and spending to do it. This is really no different than what Matt Shaeffer tells them if they have the commonsense and the foresight to go and ask him. One of the clubs I'm talking to right now I'm going to try to take to Merion to speak with Matt and some others there. If possible I would like to get Matt and those from Merion to come to the club in question too.

Furthermore, as I already said above, if clubs in this area, that is sometimes called the northern side of the "suicide belt", want to maintain consistent firm and fast with very little potential browning out like the Oakmonts, Merions, Pine Valleys and Aroniminks it can cost bigtime for the very reasons I just outlined above---eg massive syringing which translates into huge man-hours---eg maintenance dollars. If they don't care about that or don't have the money I tell them they will be risking browning out---eg dormancy and turf loss, so just to be ready for that and not to get upset if and when it happens.

I just call this whole thing now---"managing expectation".

[wsmorrison]

"Clubs of certain stature, need to look at the impact of their actions beyond what it does for just themselves and their members.  They are role models that others will follow."

No need to look between the lines.  On this and previous threads you state clearly that clubs have a tacit responsibility regarding their influence on other clubs.  That is nonsense.  I trust when you consider it more carefully you will agree.  If not, the Malone booth at the Newtown Square Diner is available  

"Regarding what you call ideal maintenance meld; if it in some cases as you say "probably costs more and a lot more", what do you tell clubs seeking and/or trying to establish an ideal maintenance meld?  Should you tell them that an ideal maintenance meld should be based on "the architecture" or based on "what the club can afford"?  Seems on this site we tend to critize courses that are not "set up properly for their architecture".  Could it be that it is too expensive for them to maintain it that way and we tend to forget that part of the equation?"

Now that is a good topic.  I don't know what it cost to convert from overly watered and lush to the outstanding playability that exists today at Huntingdon Valley and Philadelphia Country Club.  But they are succeeding at a very reasonable level in one case where they accept browning and some dormancy and an average level for a top-tier club in the district in the other where they have that light green sheen that Tom has mentioned.  I'd certainly ask those two very talented superintendents, Scott Anderson and Mike McNulty how they do it.  Then there is Matt Shaffer that does the near impossible--keeping a course in this area in championship condition every day possible.  He'll be the first to say it takes talent and money.  Is that the correct order? Matt knows  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sorry to be late to this party, but I wanted to note that the discussion always goes to the top 1% of clubs that cater to probably the richest .02% of golfers in the good old US of A.  When we speak of Merion influencing other clubs, in percentage terms, just how many clubs do we think that is?

Even if most clubs wanted to emulate these courses, its a matter of degrees, and in most club meetings I have been to, the don't spend any more money vote prevails, even if the top club in town is getting better.  Maybe its like American wages - the rich get richer and the middle class is slowly slipping downward?

In DFW (where labor rates are cheaper than the NE) we have a dozen clubs over $1MIL.  Others (including my club) still do a decent job on half that, and I know some courses making do on a third of that.  My golf experience isn't particularly unpleasant, even if my cart paths aren't edged.

To me, the talking point is how good a job superintendents with less than stellar budgets do.  I ask often, and it seems to be that they are great people persons, and thus get far more work out of the labor they do have.  Secondarily, they reduce to almost nothing fringe areas of importance.  Thirdly, they don't hand mow, and very few notice.  Fourth, I think they make grass choices more on maintenance than play qualities.  Here in TX, that would be using baby bermudas rather than the life support required for bents, etc.

BTW, there is little correlation to construction and maintenance costs, IMHO.  The closest would be the number and type of bunkers, and the inclusion of steep slopes in what might normally be "high production mowing areas" i.e., not lining each fw with mounds.

It is all expectations.  There is nothing inherently expensive to maintain at Augusta National from a design standpoint, other than perhaps the steep sand bunker faces in a rainy GA climate.  In fact, at most courses I know, superintendents complain about the rising cost of bunker maintenance - its way out of proportion for the acreage they occupy.  

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
It is all about expectations and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, expectations are often set by experiences gained and the influences of others.  

Why do we go to seminars?  To learn from others who have set an example?  Top clubs "do have a tacit responsibility whether they like it or not."   To think otherwise is nieve.  

I go back to my one example; if St. Andrews would decide to rebuild all their greens to USGA specs, do you think they should have any concern of the impact of that decision on other golf clubs?  I happen to believe they should.  Maybe I am wrong but that is my position and I'm sticking to it  

[Kyle Harris]

Jeff,
It is all about expectations and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, expectations are often set by experiences gained and the influences of others.  

Why do we go to seminars?  To learn from others who have set an example?  Top clubs "do have a tacit responsibility whether they like it or not."   To think otherwise is nieve.  

I go back to my one example; if St. Andrews would decide to rebuild all their greens to USGA specs, do you think they should have any concern of the impact of that decision on other golf clubs?  I happen to believe they should.  Maybe I am wrong but that is my position and I'm sticking to it  

Mark,

The St. Andrews example is a Red Herring. How do you know that by NOT converting to USGA Spec greens, they aren't setting an example of LEAVING WELL ENOUGH ALONE.

Why the hell would they? Why don't you stick to examples that actually have happened - like the deepening of the Road Hole bunker. It seems that St. Andrews has made changes to the golf course through the years and they haven't cared about the impact on other clubs, nor have other clubs really noticed.

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

You are now making the same point on two concurrent threads.  You think a high profile club, whether regional, national or global should make decisions not solely based on their best interests but on the interests of other clubs with completely different dynamics.  That is a bad notion no matter how many threads you start to try and prove otherwise.  Who agrees with you?

Then you propose an absurd scenario that would never happen and expect that to be an example demonstrating the merits of your position.  It does not.

Top clubs have a responsibility to themselves first.  The issues that are in play at their club are inherently different from other clubs with different soils, budgets, memberships, architecture, topography, etc.  Why should the decisions of a club be skewed towards the least common denominator?  Why belong to one of the premier clubs if they cannot reach their fullest potential in terms of playability?  You think they should constrain their activities for the good of others?  That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.  

The way other clubs react to a high profile club's efforts should be of little, if any, concern to all parties.  You rightly point out that in practice it is often the case that other clubs follow examples when they may not be able to.  Well, nobody would like to see clubs make mistakes, especially mistakes that might doom them out of existence.  None the less, the fault would be there own,  If you wish to exert an effort, they should be educated not to follow suit.  It is bassackwards to try and convince those that can and want to, not to do so for someone else's benefit.  What are you, a Socialist?  

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I started the other thread so it would not distract from this one.  Again, one of the key points on this thread was to get people's thougths on whether a great course can be maintained in that manner on something less than a huge budget?   The thread then spun off onto social responsibility.  

Regarding that "absurd scenario" that will never happen; things like that do happen and have happened.  Think hard and you will come up with some examples.  By the way, how did Oakmont turn into an aboretum    That couldn't have happened could it?

Kyle you said,

"The St. Andrews example is a Red Herring. How do you know that by NOT converting to USGA Spec greens, they aren't setting an example of LEAVING WELL ENOUGH ALONE."

Maybe you are right and they are setting an example!  My point exactly

[Jim Nugent]

The thread then spun off onto social responsibility.

Mark, often social responsibility is best served by the ME ME ME attitude you complained about.  There are a few caveats, of course, but it is one of the basic concepts of classic economic theory, which IMO is mostly borne out by experience.  

[TEPaul]

“Tom/Wayne,
Don't develop a complex because I don't think anyone is selecting out Merion.  I'm sure not.  I know Matt Shaffer very well.  He was a big contributor to and supporter of our bunkers book.  I will give Matt the courtesy of not speaking for him in a public forum, but I will say he would be very much in favor of keeping mantainence costs to a minimum.

But where I will disagree with you is that other courses do try to emulate these top clubs (or the top clubs in their respective areas).  Whether you want to admit it or not, they are leading by example and do influence what other clubs do.  The old saying, "Keeping up with the Jones" is very much a part for the setting of golf course maintenance budgets.

One more important point to add - though it varies from club to club, if the "ideal maintenance meld" (as some like to call it) is very expense to achieve, then maybe they should either not be pushing for it, or change their paradigm of what is ideal.  Aren't some of the courses we talk about that approach this ideal, costly to maintain.  I wish I could post some numbers but I will refrain.  Thoughts anyone?”



Mark:

This is where your questions about the responsibility of “role model” courses started and in my opinion this is a very important area to discuss. You seemed to imply that the “role model” clubs have some responsibility to reduce their high annual maintenance budgets to help set an example for clubs that can’t afford those budgets. Is this not what you implied?

I think we are talking about the same problem here but we may have different solutions to the problem.  Those differing solutions should be discussed on here not avoided by starting other threads on what other responsibilities of “role model” or ‘alpha dog” clubs are.