[Patrick_Mucci]

to golf courses and to the way golf is played if green budgets were cut in half ?

[Peter Galea]

Depends who's budget!

[JESII]

Why do you say that Peter?

[Chris Kane]

Patrick, some courses you play have budgets which would be at least 10 times those at courses I've played in country Victoria.  Does your post refer to elite clubs with high budgets?

[Peter Galea]

Why do you say that Peter?

There are some who can do more with less. There are many variables here from course to course.

[JESII]

What would happen if everyone had to "do more with less"?

As a non-expert (by a long shot) I'd guess the higher end courses would suffer the most in the short term and the lower and courses in the long run.

[wsmorrison]

It would clearly depend on the underlying soil of the golf course, the style of golf course, the playability requirements of the membership and most importantly the ability of the superintendents. I think the cream of the crop of superintendents would be even more evident.  

Hopefully, the end result would be more courses using less water and reactive measures, with the turf becoming more hardy over time and, especially in the cases of classic era courses, a return to intended playability as regards firm and fast.  This would be even more ideal since the turf likely wouldn't be mowed as often.

A biproduct of the longer grasses on greens would be to reverse the trend to decrease slope in greens and return lost slope.  The architects that early on become known as increased slope specialists should do very well  

[john_stiles]

Well, one of the biggest part of most 'greens' budgets is payroll, benefits, etc.

So,  there would be fewer people working on the course.
The greens and fairways would be mowed less frequently.
Equipment would be repaired until it fell apart.
Capital budgets for new equipment would be slashed.

I think play would also be down, at least in the short term.

Some private clubs would lose membership.

[Adam Clayman]

The expectations for consistency would lower.

The golfer would be on his own, so to speak, and be forced to pay closer attention.

The supply industry would be forced to get lean and mean.

Golfers would be born from the ashes, not pampered players.

Patrick,
 How about rephrasing the question to...

What if the PGA Tour and the USGA didn't show-up three years early to inspect and tweak the maintenance of a particular venue?

 In other words...
What if the elite player was asked to play on conditions the rest of us do daily? (Muni golfers especially)


Could they handle the uneven lies with clumpy grasses behind their ball... The footprints in the un-raked bunkers...The bounce of the putt from three week old un-repaired ballmarks???

I'd say if they did play the same "courses" the masses are being fed, we'd see alot more of their individual personalities ability to cope with adversity and a greater champion.

[PThomas]

It would clearly depend on the underlying soil of the golf course, the style of golf course, the playability requirements of the membership and most importantly the ability of the superintendents. I think the cream of the crop of superintendents would be even more evident.  

Hopefully, the end result would be more courses using less water and reactive measures, with the turf becoming more hardy over time and, especially in the cases of classic era courses, a return to intended playability as regards firm and fast.  This would be even more ideal since the turf likely wouldn't be mowed as often.

A biproduct of the longer grasses on greens would be to reverse the trend to decrease slope in greens and return lost slope.  The architects that early on become known as increased slope specialists should do very well  

I second Wayne's thoughts

[Mike_Sweeney]

Well, one of the biggest part of most 'greens' budgets is payroll, benefits, etc.

So,  there would be fewer people working on the course.
The greens and fairways would be mowed less frequently.
Equipment would be repaired until it fell apart.
Capital budgets for new equipment would be slashed.

I think play would also be down, at least in the short term.

Some private clubs would lose membership.

See the reverse in Yale 2000 vs Yale 2006. The budget has not been doubled, but Scott was able to get more bodies on the course by making a deal with the unions. The pictures in Ran's review are a distant memory.

[Marc Haring]

Generally I think the game would benefit greatly. It would become more accessible but with little in the way of lost enjoyment accept to those that have gotten used to artificial conditions. The key is using those reduced budgets wisely. It’s not just a case of sack half the staff but continue to pump out the fertilisers and chemicals. Less grass growth, patchier conditions, less consistency but maintain good surfaces.

At the moment I am looking at my wetting agent programme for next year and I am really wondering if I can get away with zero applications. I’ve got 3 hectares of greens and that means about £10,000 just to try and avoid slightly patchy greens for a couple of months in the year. It just isn’t cost affective, especially as those patches become the best parts of the greens in the winter months!

[john_stiles]

Mike,

Yale is a great exception and it has been very nice to hear of their improvements in all aspects.

Most courses, except for city/county courses, are not union in the southern US.    I imagine most courses in the US are not union given the change in that aspect of the work place in the last 20 years, plus the shift in the makeup of the US greens crews.

So,  cutting greens budget 50% would almost certainly mean drastic cuts in personnel.  Payroll is numero uno.

Greens and fairways would be slower with less frequent cutting and certainly the heights for routine maintenance would also be raised.

Good conditioning, as possibly inferred above, means 'fast (stimp 9-10) & smooth '  greens  and a short cut in the fairways.

All this 'good conditioning' would be diminished with 50% less money for the budget.

Isn't 'good conditioning' craved by all in the US ?  
Number of rounds would drop in the US with 50% cut in budget.

[Chris Kurzner]

Sand/Oil greens in the South?  

[Bob_Huntley]

In other words...
What if the elite player was asked to play on conditions the rest of us do daily? (Muni golfers especially)


Could they handle the uneven lies with clumpy grasses behind their ball... The footprints in the un-raked bunkers...The bounce of the putt from three week old un-repaired ballmarks???

I'd say if they did play the same "courses" the masses are being fed, we'd see alot more of their individual personalities ability to cope with adversity and a greater champion.

Adam,

How true. The bitching you hear from Tiger Woods on down  through the ranks about how difficult it is to putt on the greens at Pebble Beach in February, is quite pathetic.

Oh for a Mao like cultural revolution on the PGA Tour, where the players (and Finchem and his minions) are banished to some Godforsaken potato patch in Iowa to be re-educated into the simpler forms of the game. Just dreaming.

Bob

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

LOL Yes I think I know I would still love the game on Muni conditions because that is where a third of my childhood rounds as well as high school matches were played. I do not find hardpan, odd clumps of St Augustine etc to make the game any less fun. I think the Monroe Louisiana Muni budget was and is 1/4 to 1/3 the local country club. But I still like the answer of it depends on the budget.

[Kyle Harris]

to golf courses and to the way golf is played if green budgets were cut in half ?

Longer hours with less labor.

Wayne,

Cutting frequently is downright NECESSARY to grass health. After this recent spate of storms, it's taken us about 3 days to get the grass back into "good cut" status, where the cut is even and clean and not tearing the blade to hell. We could finally roll the greens today and get them running where they should be. If the possibility of daily cutting is taken away by staff cuts, then grass health will suffer.

Remember, pretty much EVERY thing done to the grass is done so that the crew can cut the grass as frequently as possible. That's the only reason.

With the loss in labor, the first stuff to go would probably be bunker maintenance and rough maintenance, followed by tees, followed by fairways and then incidentals like water coolers and clean ball washers.

No super in his right mind would hold back on cutting greens just because of a loss of labor.

[Mike_Young]

Rounds of golf would increase since pricing could come down but lot values would decrease and lot sales at such courses would decrease.....

[Tim Pitner]

Oh for a Mao like cultural revolution on the PGA Tour, where the players (and Finchem and his minions) are banished to some Godforsaken potato patch in Iowa to be re-educated into the simpler forms of the game. Just dreaming.

Bob,

There aren't many potato patches in Iowa (Idaho?), but I agree with the sentiment.

[wsmorrison]

"Cutting frequently is downright NECESSARY to grass health. After this recent spate of storms, it's taken us about 3 days to get the grass back into "good cut" status, where the cut is even and clean and not tearing the blade to hell. We could finally roll the greens today and get them running where they should be. If the possibility of daily cutting is taken away by staff cuts, then grass health will suffer.

Remember, pretty much EVERY thing done to the grass is done so that the crew can cut the grass as frequently as possible. That's the only reason.

With the loss in labor, the first stuff to go would probably be bunker maintenance and rough maintenance, followed by tees, followed by fairways and then incidentals like water coolers and clean ball washers.

No super in his right mind would hold back on cutting greens just because of a loss of labor."

Kyle,

With budgets cut in half, there would have to be a return to older strains of grasses that could tolerate the higher cut.  If I were an architect specializing in returning more slopes to greens, I'd also corner the market on older strains of grass that were required and therefore make even more Kaching  

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

The higher cut isn't so much the problem, it's the frequency of cutting. You'd have to maintain the green at fairway length (or near it) in order to be able to leave them alone for a few days without dire consequences. Even then, mowing a few times a week would be necessary.

[Phil Benedict]

Hopefully the current ridiculous conditioning craze would fade.

Golfers everywhere, but especially in the USA have unrealistic expectations and pathological ideas of

"good conditioning".

This is a common theme on this site, but what do you mean by "pathological ideas" of "good conditioning?"

I belong to an old course in the Northeast where, due to the land and weather, it's hard to grow grass.  From a playing standpoint, this manifests itself in patchiness on the greens, which suffer in the heat due to poa, and uneven growth in peripheral areas (ie off the fairway and off the greens).  One recurring consequence is funky lies in the vicinity of the greens.  As objects tend to gather in low spots, balls in the rough around the greens often end in bare spots.  Frankly, this annoys the hell out of me! Once in a while - sure, it's the rough - but most of the time, I think it's ok to bitch.

Is this being pathological?  And as to Pat's original question, the only way to fix this is to spend money.  Our super overseeded the entire course other than the greens in the spring.  Unfortunately, the seed didn't really take because of the wretched weather in May and June.  We got assessed for this and other items on the super's agenda.

[john_stiles]

There are not too many bunkers at many semi-private or public courses, and those are not maintained now.

There would be less mowing period.

Kinda what you see at the lesser conditioned courses today, less mowing of greens, much slower greens speed

Many public courses have half the budget (or less) of many privates.  You can notice the difference when you play both.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne,

The higher cut isn't so much the problem, it's the frequency of cutting. You'd have to maintain the green at fairway length (or near it) in order to be able to leave them alone for a few days without dire consequences. Even then, mowing a few times a week would be necessary."

How often do you think greens were cut for most of the past 80 years?

You're too young to be such a spoil sport.  Get with the program or get left behind.  I'm on the phone right now buying up all the old strains of bent I can get my Bunker Hunt hands on.  

[Kyle Harris]

"Wayne,

The higher cut isn't so much the problem, it's the frequency of cutting. You'd have to maintain the green at fairway length (or near it) in order to be able to leave them alone for a few days without dire consequences. Even then, mowing a few times a week would be necessary."

How often do you think greens were cut for most of the past 80 years?

You're too young to be such a spoil sport.  Get with the program or get left behind.  I'm on the phone right now buying up all the old strains of bent I can get my Bunker Hunt hands on.  

Got enough Velvet Bent to cover both courses are your club there, pardner.  

In all seriousness, how often were they cut?

Factoring inflation, what was the cost to maintain?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()