[Richard Choi]

To borrow a line from our recently departed, I think the "land fit for a purpose" axiom applies here.

My yard is not a golf course.  I won't be maintaining it as a golf course.  However, I may want to look at it, or go sit on it, or maybe my kids go play on it.  None of us want to sit on a brown crusty lawn.  We want green grass that looks nice and feels refreshing.

Different set of requirements for a golf course.  I don't want to sit on it, I want to play golf on it.  Fast and firm is a better playing surface and adds more interest.

Different set of requirements? Says who?

I would argue most golfers are out there because they like being in an environment that is just like their lush green lawns, but in a much bigger scale. You guys have already stated the benefits of such said environment. Golfers want more of that (along with more trees!). If fast and firm is sacrificed for such benefit, I don't think most people care about such tradeoffs. Which is what most supers are delivering.

It is hypocritical to harshly judge others for enjoying/promoting the same thing you are.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Richard,

You and I are in the same ballpark in wanting to know if those who call out golf courses for overwatering are not guilty themselves.  Personally, I cannot buy the Kalen argument, only because golf turf probably has higher requirements for playing golf than sitting down on the grass does.  Typical lawns equal about rough level maintenance for golf courses.

Our differences are in whether most folks are really ready to accept native landscape around their houses.  As you get in the midwest, not too many housing sites have pure native (more corn that has to be a rebuilt landscape anyway) and so the question is what do we do?  Developers sure need to grade enough to fit the most lots in as possible, further taking away what was natural, and reestablishing true nature takes 3 years minimum, when its instant sod and easier sale with turf.

Lots of interwined issues in American housing, to be sure.  Not sure the lawn is the biggest of our issues in water conservation.  More than 80% of irrigation is for crops.  We could cut water their and let people across the world starve.  Is reducing water a good idea there?  All I know is someone smarter than me will have to figure all that out, but I try to water my lawn as little as possible as my contribution to the water saving cause.

[PGertner]

Amen. Many blowhards on this site have no concept of what it takes to maintain golf turf during summer, or anytime.
They talk a good game but these posts just display their ignorance and arrogance.

And maybe, some are in denial and/or just being defensive.


No, quite the contrary. I love educating and telling people about my business. However, some people choose not to learn, but stick to their incorrect thinking based on assumptions. Information I provide is based on real world factual information. I am a Super with a huge stake in the golf business, not a pretender.  



Nothing new as GCA has been a Super bashing site for some time now.

I don't think that's true at all,
In many cases on GCA.com Super's have been commended for the job they do.
Just because you may not like the topic, doesn't mean that those participating are "Super Bashing"
I think you're just being defensive and taking the comments/debate personally.


I love the topic and have no reason to be defensive. I know of what I speak, been doing this a long time. And, I may not post often, but I have been here longer than most. GCA IS a super bashing site...and let me show these last two topics as examples.....There have been countless before these.....


As a Supt, I also cringe when I read posts about wet spongy turf during summer. We aren't all perfect, but simply turning off the water isn't the answer either. (To me, wet spongy fairways = future job opportunities!!


WHY isn't reducing water application the long term answer ?

So do we just tell the turf that it isn't behaving and we're gonna take away its sustenance because GCA guys say so? Tell our members we need to close for a renovation for six or eight months to save 20% of the irrigation water we use? Tell them no more golf carts? Please open your eyes. Golf courses have changed since the 1950's and 1960's as have our methods to maintain them. I'm thinking golfer's demands combined with advanced equipment, products and techniques have brought us to this point. Remember, you guys got us here by providing dollars. We just did what you all wanted...quite well in most cases. No fair now wanting to take your clubs and go home.  


.....Our fwys, less than 15 miles from Newport need irrigation....or they would be toast right now, and they will give anyone 25-50 yards of roll.

Do you have any aerials of your course from the summers in the 50's and 60's before the automated irrigation system was introduced.
Were those fairways "toast" ?
Did the golfers at your club enjoy playing the course, even when the fairways were browned out ?


Of course they enjoyed it. Golf was fun with hickory shafts too, but are there any of those in your bag today? And yes, fairways "browned out" in an era before golf carts, on fairways mowed above 1" on adapted grasses that had NO Poa annua. And come on....the worst fairways in the world can look perfect driving by in your Hupmobile at 55 MPH or from a grainy old aerial picture.....

The world, and golf have progressed. And as I stated earlier, progress isn't always good! I'd rather drive around in a new 1967 Mustang and pay that $ 2500 sticker vs my $ 30,000 Camry Hybrid anyday. Automatic irrigation brought with it a host of problems...mostly Poa annua.    


Also, does anyone truly want to back to fairways from the 1950's?
I am quite sure anyone would be shocked at how poor they would be compared to 2012 fairways.

"Poor" in what way ?
LOOKS or PLAYABILITY ?
I can assure you it wouldn't be playability.

Both. I can assure you playability and shot making ability is absolutely better today. No comparison. 50's-60's fairways would have thin turf, taller and inconsistent heights of cut, voids, rocks, weeds, inconsistency shot to shot, presence of clippings, plenty of casual water, poorly drained areas, untreated winter and summer diseases and more I am sure.  


How do you know how fairways played in the 50's ?

By using my brain thinking about the technology available of the day.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I recall at age 12, 1967 playing Medinah and playing Rob Roy (local privately owned public course that had both a regulation 18 and a 9 hole learners course.

I noticed a difference between all three.  Medinah obviously had some fw irrigation but the fw was all poa annua.  Rob Roy 18 had a bunch of it too.  Rob Roy 9 was as described above with thin grass, weeds, etc. but not soggy and without any casual water.

There was a wide variation of turf in the 60's from high to low.  But, just as this site categorizes teh Golden Age as all good and most of what follows all bad, so it is with turf. 

I don't think cooler heads (perhaps over irrigated LOL) should make real decisions based on nostalgia......and bad memory.

[Carl Nichols]

It is hypocritical to harshly judge others for enjoying/promoting the same thing you are.

If you put it that way, I suppose I agree with you, but I'm not sure many people on here are doing what you describe.  To Kalen's point, it's certainly not hypocritical to express a preference that one's lawn be lush while one's course be fast and firm.  Unless those preferences are driven by environmental/water-usage reasons. 

[Doug Siebert]

Richard,

As I mentioned above, things seem to trade off.  For example, all those white rock lawns in Vegas and Palm Springs save water but also contribute to raise the nearby temperatures of the street.  Is some lawn and watering worth an few degrees in heat reduction and livability in those climates?

People maintaining lawns in Vegas wouldn't do a whole lot for the temperature.  In a typical Vegas house you have maybe a few thousand square feet that could be grassed.  It is surrounded by a six feet cinder block wall, and surrounds a house with a stone exterior and tile roof, fronted by a concrete driveway and sidewalk, and blacktop street.  The amount of heat absorption and re-radiation from all that wouldn't allow much relief from a nice green lawn unless you were laying on it.

The city actually pays people $1/square foot to rip out their grass, due to the fact Lake Mead is over 100 feet below what is considered "full".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Well thankfully Pat, I wasn't around to know what fairways in the 50's and 60's were like.

Earlier in this thread you said this,

If every committee, board and membership could visit Newport and Maidstone, maybe we'd make some progress.

Sorry to beat a dead font, but

that's one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard on GCA.com.

I must ask you, really!?  


Yeah, really.
You don't get it, plain and simple.

Courses can survive without being lush, dark green in hot weather.
Playing surfaces can improve with reduced irrigation.

In this heat, with little rain, do you think it's natural for fairways and greens to be not show the slightest hint of discoloration ?
Or, do you think that the lack of discoloration is unusual/unnatural, reflecting the overuse of water ?

That's the assertion you wish to make with regard to water usage?

That's ONE of them. 

Because if not for the blindingly serious tone to your post, it would be one of the more humorous--and dumb--things I have ever read on this site.  


That speaks more to your lack of understanding of the issue/s.
As I stated, you just don't get it, you don't understand that fairways can be brownish-yellowish-greenish with vastly improved playability, without putting the grass at risk.  It's the modern day culture and TV that impede the achievement of those conditions.

There are accepted standards in each and every industry.  Irrigating a course in Texas in a similar manner as those on Long Island or Newport, RI would be not only stupid, but worse, gross mismanagement.  Sorry, it's a fact.

You can't be that stupid.......... can you ?

Would you cite for me where ANYONE suggested the same applications ?
Try reading more carefully.

If you didn't understand the generic/global nature of the statement, there's not much to discuss with you.

But, to help you understand the generic/global nature of the statement, here are the photos of Fishers Island taken this morning.
See if you can gleen, from viewing the photos, what the /generic/global nature of the statement was.
In addition, read Donnie Beck's comments about how these conditions are enthusiastically accepted by the membership.

Do you think that fairways in Texas could have less water applied to them while still retaining or even improving their playability ?
Or, is it your position, that fairways in Texas must have lush, dark green conditions ?

Have you ever heard of "Common Bermuda"
Does it need to be watered to the degree that it's lush, dark green in order for it to provide a more than adequate playing surface ?

How do these fairways look to you ?










You can put your hands over your ears and scream "but how did all those courses survive in the 50's and 60's" until you're blue in the face.  

Then look at the 2012 photos above again.
Those fairways are how the fairways looked in the 50's and 60's, but you would neither know that or understand the issue of playability on those fairways.

But this ain't 1957, Milwaukee's team ain't the Braves, cigarettes kill now just as no one thought they did then, and grass needs water now just as it needed it then.

Really ?

Look at the photos again.

Those fairways are NOT watered. 

If Super's had the ability to smartly use water the way a guy like Don Mahaffey does now way back in 1957, they would have.  

On what basis do you make that statement ?

Supers back then had the ability to use water smartly, and they did, and the courses weren't lush, dark green when the heat was up and rain at a minimum.  Many, if not most fairways were brownish-yellowish-greenish and they played spectacularly.  Sometimes they browned out, but few objected to that.

Today, I played a course in Ohio with browned out rough in many locations.
Hit the ball off line and it really went off line.
What's wrong with that, versus lush, thick rough which gobbles balls up, making them difficult to find and even more difficult to play from ?

Do you think for one second that supers in the 50's and 60's would have poured water on their courses making them lush, dark green ?

It wasn't the culture of golf, a concept you haven't grasped yet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

Many don't understand the cultural divide, for lawns and for golf courses.

Some want their lawns lush, dark green...... all of the time.
The problem that confronts them is when their town imposes water restrictions.
Then, their lawns get stressed and can die.

Others, don't water their lawns, and they turn brownish-yellowish-greenish to plain brown.

But, when their town imposes water restrictions, their lawns remain healthy, viable and able to easily recover at the slightest rainfall.

It's a mindset.

Ditto golf courses.

Playability versus the visual.

Is there a happy medium, certainly, but it sure as hell isn't lush, dark green conditions when it hasn't rained and is hot.

I played three courses over the weekend.

Roll was a very limited factor on one.
The other two had some roll.
The one without the roll was the longest course where I needed more roll but couldn't get it.

Does that make sense for the average golfer ?
For every golfer ?

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I really hope I'm not that stupid.  You're depending on me. 

At any rate, it is the generic/global nature of your statement that is the precise reason for my disagreement.  I hope that you understand this.  Because insinuations that what Donnie Beck does at Fishers Island could be accepted in a generic/global way throughout the golf world is shortsighted and ignorant of basic agronomic principles.  Donnie does fantastic work with the variables he has at play.  Other supers do the same.  It is anything but generic/global in nature.

I urge you to research the Koppen Climate Classification system.  I also urge you study what happens to Common Bermuda when it is weakened during summer months and then exposed to the kinds of temperatures you'll find in Dallas and Atlanta during the winter. 

Furthermore, the continued black/white viewpoint of this discussion is doing no good.  You are comparing your 50's and 60's brownish-yellowish-greenish ideal to overwatered, mushy, lush turf.  Like our recently departed stalwart Melvyn, you seem unwilling to see that there is middle ground.  You keep pounding away at the brownish-yellowish-greenish ideal.  But 4 weeks ago at NGLA, the golf course was absolutely beautiful, and it played fast.  I wonder what Bill Salinetti is doing with regards to water to accomplish that?  I doubt he is overwatering and I doubt he turned off his fairways either. 

[Sean_A]

"However, I may want to look at it, or go sit on it, or maybe my kids go play on it.  None of us want to sit on a brown crusty lawn.  We want green grass that looks nice and feels refreshing."

Really, you water grass so kids can play on it?  You water grass so it will look refreshing?  Why not just drink the refreshing water?  You and I are miles apart in how we would like to see a valuable resource used.

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

What Ben said.  I can agree with you in a very general way that it is better (regardless of any water restrictions) to water deep and infrequently, because its best for turf.  And a few golf courses and many more homeowners overwater.  As I said, I rarely play a soggy golf course down here in TX, and knowing the supers I know, don't see many who aren't concerned about how much water they use for a variety of reasons.

In fact, I would love you to just name names of clubs that are too soggy! (or just too wet)  I don't believe its a universal problem, and thus, like Ben, think you may be over stating the case in generalities.  But, if you believe that only 1% of courses overwatering is too much, I can respect and agree with that, too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I really hope I'm not that stupid.  You're depending on me. 

At any rate, it is the generic/global nature of your statement that is the precise reason for my disagreement.  I hope that you understand this.  Because insinuations that what Donnie Beck does at Fishers Island could be accepted in a generic/global way throughout the golf world is shortsighted and ignorant of basic agronomic principles. 

Ben, I'm begining to have my doubts about you.

Reducing the volume of water on golf courses is neither shortsighted or being ignorant of basic agronomic principals.

You still haven't understood the underlying premise.

Let me repeat it for you

With this heat wave I've noticed something disturbing, the grass is green.
I would have thought that the predominant tint would have been that Brownish-yellowish-greenish tint.
I've also noticed that I'm not getting much roll.
My lawn, which doesn't get watered and doesn't have much traffic, is brownish-yellowish-greenish.
Are memberships at fault ?
Do Supers have to be defensive due to membership perspective and expectations ?
WHY aren't we seeing the grass at it's natural tint given the weather conditions ?

Donnie does fantastic work with the variables he has at play.  Other supers do the same. 

NO, the don't, they do their memberships bidding, and that's the distinction you don't get.

It is anything but generic/global in nature.

Again, you don't get it.
It is generic/global.

Let me put it to you another way.
Too much water is being applied to golf courses and one of the reasons is to keep them green irrespective of the particular climate conditions.

I urge you to research the Koppen Climate Classification system.  I also urge you study what happens to Common Bermuda when it is weakened during summer months and then exposed to the kinds of temperatures you'll find in Dallas and Atlanta during the winter. 

Why do you and others fail to read with any degree of comprehension ?
So, you're telling us that Bermuda has to be lush, dark green in the summer ?
It can't be healthy and off that color/quality ?
Nonsense.

Furthermore, the continued black/white viewpoint of this discussion is doing no good. 
You are comparing your 50's and 60's brownish-yellowish-greenish ideal to overwatered, mushy, lush turf. 


It's a valid comparison.
The same courses, the same weather conditions.
The only difference is time and HOC.

What you don't get is that these weather conditions should NOT produce lush, dark green grass and mushy conditions.
That's my point, one that you haven't grasped.

The grass should show signs that it's hot and hasn't rained, and NOT look like it's early spring.

Like our recently departed stalwart Melvyn, you seem unwilling to see that there is middle ground.

I'm going to repeat myself.
You can't be that dumb, can you.
That's exactly what I'm saying, namely that the grass shouldn't be lush, dark green and mushy.
Now do you get it ? 

You keep pounding away at the brownish-yellowish-greenish ideal. 

There's a reason for that.
That's the ideal conditions for playability.
Shouldn't one strive for that ideal ?

But 4 weeks ago at NGLA, the golf course was absolutely beautiful, and it played fast. 

It played well, I don't know that it played as fast as it normally does.

I wonder what Bill Salinetti is doing with regards to water to accomplish that? 

Depends upon what his membership wants, doesn't it ?

I doubt he is overwatering and I doubt he turned off his fairways either. 

How do you know ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

As I described earlier, its not black and white, its really a matter how how close to the minimum water capacity a superintendent wants to let his turf get, even if the membershipe says it wants firm and fast.  Most turfs die when they are at about 33% of their actual full water capacity.  (some just go dormant) 

Modern irrigation systems measure ET and many supers do replace that at 100%, which keeps turf green, using more water than is absolutely necessary.  However, if they turned the water off, allowing turf to go right to their dormancy point, then they would have to water to full ET after that to maintain minimum water moisture.

If they water half or 2/3 actual ET, allowing some drying they can do it most years, counting on periodic rain to keep moisture up, except if drought causes turf to go to its minimum water capacity.   Then they need to water to full ET again.  I have run the numbers, and you do save water over just watering every night.

Again, I know of no supers who water 110% of ET.   I believe ET overhypes the extend of water actually needed for those who water to 100% of ET. (evapotranspiration btw)    I believe every second to third night watering is better for turf, if members don't mind playing differences between the alternate holes. 

I believe more could water to 66-75% of ET, esp up north, and do better.  But as we have discussed around here, managing on the edge IS difficult and requires huge committment, and as you say, probably neither super or members really like the idea, unless forced on them by water shortages.  Putting grass under too much stress isn't a great idea, as it leads to more weeds, death, etc.  It may be the environmental cost of purposely underwatering is greater than watering a little more than is necessary.

Also, grass is naturally green, so in some senses, managing it for brown isn't easy.  Off green, as you suggest, is possible.  However, I'm not even sure that the amount of green is all irrigation related.  They might have added iron, for example.  Ditto the roll.  What is your thatch situation, your poa annual situation?  (actually, some of those mixed browns and greens are probably big dead areas of poa, no?)

Its just too hard a subject to generalize on, at least IMHO.

[JMEvensky]

Its just too hard a subject to generalize on, at least IMHO.

This--and it doesn't serve much purpose to cite only extremes. While a lot of us would love to play a course maintained such as FI,the fact is that few of us ever will on a regular basis.

What might be helpful is to construct some universal arguments in favor of using less water.

Where would the membership at Club X draw the line if they were shown that their perfect green fairways cost 20% (hypothetical) more than fairways with a little brown and a few weeds?

I think the arguments have to be couched in terms of marginal costs.If a membership can be shown that less manicured fairways cost less,while being more fun to play,we might win some converts.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I think in many ways, Pat is really thinking in 20 year old stereotypes, but will give him credit for seeing what he sees.  Inn my experience, the cost of maintenance at high end clubs isn't so much in what they do, as much as how often they do it.  For example,  many clubs set the standards of never having an unraked bunker, just in case members or guests might experience it.  Raking 7 days a week cost about 3X as raking twice a week at a public, or 2X at a resort that dares to chance less than perfect conditions.  Add in edge trimming at 7 per week vs once per month, and I have seen similar courses vary from 50 tl 250K per year in bunker maintenance.

As to things like chem and ferts, I believe most supers have the mantra of reductions beat into them by environmentalists.  In terms of irrigation, not sure how my above example would translate or be quantified, especially since water needs vary so much from year to year, but I bet its only the 1% that even think in terms of perfect green 24/7.  Most courses are struggling with reduced maintenance budgets, so the courses Pat is talking about have to be in that 1% upper crust.

Like you, I wish my biggest problem was playing expensive, exclusive, over watered courses on a regular basis!  But, that is not my reality, for sure. 

As to convincing the American golfer about firm and fast, I think its unfortunately an uphill battle, as most on this board would agree.

[JMEvensky]

Only 20 years?Mucci thinks Truman is still President.

Although he doesn't need me to speak for him,my guess is that PM draws some of the same conclusions that I do--that over the last 20(?) years,golf course maintenance has certainly gotten a lot better but the benefit hasn't been worth the price.

Aesthetics has trumped playability--and common sense.Priorities in a golf maintenance budget,not to mention the budgets themselves, are all out of whack.

Most clubs have a majority of members who play at golf rather than actually play golf.In Mucci's halcyon period,these guys would have been ignored.Few clubs can afford to do that now.

It's a social golf world now.

IMO,the only thing that will help move clubs toward fast and firm is a serious discussion of the costs involved with maintaining courses as most of us now do.

If you get a few guys to start realizing that maybe a few weeds in the fairways saves each of them $100 (hypothetical) per year,spending priorities may change.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I don't doubt that some of what you and Pat say are true.  But my club still has a maintenance budget of $400K - in the heyday of the club, the super had $700K to work wity, and it reduced and then stayed the same for many years now despite inflation.

For me, that is typical, not the kinds of budgets and attitudes that Pat gripes about.  Around here, courses do go off green in summer, come back in fall.  Probably to a lesser degree than the old days because of irrigation, but I don't know if taking out some of the highs and lows of seasonal golf is all bad, nor do I think its possible with an irrigation system to get that patchy brown Pat shows.  Its either green, mid green or brown to the extent of the system.  Thus, I think its harder to pin down cost savings than you might think.

Most of the supers I know have really reduced both weed and fert apps, both from environmental side and cost side.  And, I bet most golfers really do accept the weeds.  I know our club has a few, but not so many that I care.

I guess I am just wondering just how prevalent the "copy ANGC" model really is in American Golf.  Even if 33% of clubs start out to follow that, I bet only 10% of those (or 3% of the total) really follow through once they see the costs.

Short version, I think what you propose is already happening to a larger degree than the popular vision of golf.

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I have no doubts about you my friend.  I was so sure of your ability to turn your own uninformed minority opinion into certain fact with regards to playing conditions, that I only read halfway through your post.  I'm only kidding of course, because the joy with which I am reading your replies is brightening an otherwise normal day.  I will say it for again for you.  You are accepting no middle ground or realization that the ideal you are preaching is gone with the wind.  I am trying to show you what pragmatism is, not blind longing ideology.  Green grass can play fast.  Chlorotic/brown (other than dormant) grass is a sign of a deficiency and impending issues with turf.  And to boot, golfers won't accept it.  I too wish that the maintenance ideal espoused by Newport, FI and Maidstone would creep into our country's golfing culture.  Ain't happening.  The reality is that you might as well be yelling while sitting at the bottom of a pool.

No, the hard cold reality is that as soon as you reduce water inputs into the turf system in a way that makes the course aesthetically unappealing, pushback is what you'll get.  What you're speaking of is a membership issue only, not an agronomic one.  If I thought you had the requisite agronomic knowledge to understand why the brownish-yellowish-greenish tint could be harmful for the future of the turf stand, then we could have a good debate.  Alas, you have resorted to rubber bullets in the form of insult and barbs and certainty of opinion.  

What's even more interesting about your argument, is that it doesn't broach the subject of conservation and efficiency.  Your concern is playability.  This is another reason why I just can't subscribe to your reasoning.  The simple truth is that unless water usage begins to hit clubs/courses in the wallet, we'll never see a relaxing of maintenance expectations.  

The sad fact of any agronomic talk on this discussion board is that fast and firm is possible, but no one really understand how to get there.  Oh they think they know, but really have no idea.  Shinnecock circa June 2004 helps us understand what can happen when conditioning overrides climactic realities.  But the debate style here at GCA hinges on freak outliers to make points.  Black and white, this is all that exists.  I haven't played a course in three years where a tee shot backed up in a fairway.  I also have played very few courses—Old Macdonald and NGLA are really the only ones—where the run out of the golf ball scared me.  But these are the accepted argument standards here at GCA.  It’s either concrete, or mush.  Well Pat, there is a gray area.  There are supers and memberships that enjoy firm and fast conditions with a nice aesthetic.  That’s the ideal.  

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

every other day during most of the year and once a week during the summer when it rains every day for the most part.

[Sam Morrow]

every other day during most of the year and once a week during the summer when it rains every day for the most part.

Is this at the estate in Lafayette?

[Mike Sweeney]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()