I'm aware of the program, but I don't know what to think of it.
No matter what the R & A and the USGA do, it is up to individual golf course superintendents and golf course owners to meet and exceed those standards. The two governing bodies don't own a single course and so they cannot lead by example, only by rhetoric.
PS While in Scotland last month, I heard talk that the R & A's setup of Royal Liverpool had left a great deal of dead grass in its wake. (Yes, it's possible for grass that color to just be dormant, but it's also possible to kill it if you put it under too much stress.) Both the club and the R & A seemed to be happy to deal with renovating the turf in exchange for such a great championship ... but if the R & A is trying to set the standard for turf maintenance globally, killing the grass at the Open cannot be considered a great sales tool, can it?
Tom,
if you don't know what to think of the R&A program then I think maybe you should inform yourself in more detail about it. Although it isn't the answer to all the problems it certainly is a good step in the right direction. It certainly couldn't hurt and you may find somethings in it very useful and informative. You will also find the people involved in it very open to questions and ideas and I am sure they would be thrilled if you were to contact them (assuming you haven't already).
Although I partially see why you saythe USGA and R&A only been able to lead by rhetoric it seems to me to be a very general statement that is only partially correct. It seems to me that the USGA was very sucessful with it's recommendations for golf green constructions not only with golf clubs and owners but also with most GCAs and this can't just be placed down to rhetoric. Indeed most of the people advising golf clubs on what to do don't own a course and certainly most superintendents don't nor for that matter most GCAs but that doesn't make their opinion or advice any less worthy.
The R&A probably has a closer contact with the club scene in the UK than the USGA in the US. It is in a position to influence things at the grass root level (excuse the pun). I firmly believe that it is important to support any such program that is helping golf find its true self again and leading it away from the dark days of the atomic green green. The R&A are investing a lot of time, effort and money into this program and to dimiss it as rhetoric is not doing justice to all the people who are working so hard on it. What is more important it is a program that grows through the active involvement of clubs, unions, greenkeepers, GCAs etc and anyone can be apart of it regardless of status and money.
I was at Hoylake last week and had the chance to talk to the greenstaff as well as look at the course. Yes there is some dead grass, no it has nothing to do with the 'R&As set up' but with the traffic the course took during the Open week and the effect of the hot and dry weather leading up to it. All the other clubs in the area looked pretty much the same on this point.
Lastly the program is not about trying to set any sort of global standard for turf maintenance like the DOAK scale isn't an attempt to judge the standard of all courses for all players. The R&A wishes to help clubs and courses to offer golfers quality golf with an affordable price tag. It isn't saying that this doesn't exist but there are many courses which are struggling to do this.
I much admire your stand on firm and fast even more so as you don't just talk it but actually live it through your work. Which is what the R&A, STRI as well as many clubs and greenkeepers are also doing through what they say and do.
Hope I didn't come across too strong but it is something I strongly believe in.