Patrick Mucci.....I just spent 2 days at our GCSA chapters spring meeting...great seminars led by Bruce Clarke from Rutgers, Erik Ervin from VPI....and a host of regional USGA guys....Matt Nelson, Pat Gross, Mark Passey, Bob Vavrek and Larry Gulluly....

Many of the best practices we encourage on this board, many of the qualities we want to see when we play a golf course, cost lots of money...

However....Bruce Clarke in his simplicity nails it....increase Nitrogen, raise height of cut on greens, water just right and roll your greens a couple of times  a week.

Pat, there is really no way to answer your questions.  Particularly, where to cut 10-25%.  Many questions you raise already imply answers.  But, for each circumstance and consequence are different from course to course, or club to club.  That is because every club has a different base line of values and differing standards that they expect or want to see on their course, at their club.  

I know of clubs in this area where I think it might really be tough to cut 10% because they are already run efficiently, and have a more lean and economical operating standard as it is.  Yet, I can think of a couple where I really believe they have enough fat, and enough eye candy and aesthetic touches throughout their course, where if times got tough, they could cut and still have a fine course.  

Things like ornamentals and flower gardens throughout the course, including green house operations on-site.  There are gardens  next to tees and cart paths, and really overly maintained turf that would need to be weaned slowly from all the pampering.  But, the obvious key is whether the members could stand to see a little austerity.  I don't see all those old long time members that play infrequently, and it is more about the social life around the club, agreeing to a less than beautiful course and grounds, in their perception of what is good.  

I guess each club sets its own standards over time through trial and error.  Some get it right (as we might agree).  Some demand standards that are expensive, and yet their committees aren't all that sympathetic to any super that don't give it to them.  Cutting 10-25% will invariably be taken out of the super's hide, one way or the other.  But, who will lower their expectations to a functional, yet austere set of standards?  

My suggestion is that maintenance depts need to do far more detailed and itemized cost accounting where maintenance dollars go. If green committees and clubs can see in more detail where the dollars go they are better prepared to know where to cut costs.

Even if growing mediums and weather patterns are different in GB etc, the USA could probably help itself by looking more closely at what GB maintenance practices and maintenance costs are and why.

The fact is the US agronomic industry is now a mega-monster that is designed to sustain itself and its billion dollar industry at the expense of American golf. What that industry has created over time is a general agronomic status quo that can fairly be termed "The Great American Agronomic Emergency Ward".  

Decades of hybridization and constant remediation has institutionalized a locked-in agronomic condition and expectation and cost structure, and emergency wards are really expensive.

American agronomy ought to be weaned off the great American agronomic emergency ward and let go back outside to fend for itself better with Nature as it has done previously for perhaps millions of years.  

We would probably find it hard to believe the various natural defense mechanisms agronomy possesses that have, over time, been shut down by the "Great American Agronomic Emergency Ward"----eg the billion dollar American Agronomy industry and all its supporting and ancilliary products and mechanisms based on the idea of constant artificial remediation maintenance of one kind and another.

Pat,
Of course it could only be judged on a case by case basis, but IMO, if a course had to cut back the first place would be labor. Most courses put way to much emphasis on details that have nothing to do with playing the game. All the edging and "beautification" could be handled with much less labor if standards were lowered just a bit.
After that, I think you'd see a reduction in capitol spending on equipment. New equipment has greatly increased in price in the last few years while the market is flooded with low hour used equipment that is half the cost, but I doubt your seeing many private clubs considering anything but new. (The manufactures sell clubs on warranties and fixed costs on repairs, but it doesn't even come close to penciling out when compared to quality used equipment)
Lastly, I think you’d see a decline in “designer” fertility programs and a return to basics which could cut a nutrient program costs by half.


I once read a quote by a Superintendent out in California named Bob Taeger, "I could reduce my budget by 20% if I didn't have to keep 5% of my golfers happy."
I think those are good words and clubs should consider them when addressing budget concerns.

Actually, Pat's question isn't what the coming impact of stressed green budgets are on golf, it's the coming impact of stressed green budgets (maintenance practices) on architecture.

Generally, stressed green budgets may even benefit architecture in the long run. It may help remove the expectations and the fact of unnecessary "artistic aesthetics" from the entire concept of golf course architecture and simply force it back towards less costly naturalism in both look and practice.

Don:

On an apples to apples basis Anderson's budgets may be something around half of Merion's. And for a full and over-all comparison one probably needs to compare not just the annual operationing budgets of the two clubs but also the on-going capitol budgets.

For instance, Anderson has a really old and antiquated irrigation system and the fact is if the club attempted to get a new modern state-of-the-art irrigation system, Anderson would probably quit. He apparently loves that old antiquated irrigation system and has figured out a way to make it work perfectly for his unique and natural maintenance program.

He once drew me a picture on a piece of paper of how he makes it work for him and his maintenance program. I must say I couldn't understand it. But it's not important that I understand it--it's only important that he understands it.  

To the original question, a reduction in money available may be good for the architecture as it could take the focus away from non-golf activities and return the focus to maintaining good golfing turf for playing the game.

Imagine what your course would be like if all you could afford to do is maintain areas that are essential to the playing of the game in the most cost effective way possible. Lots of things might change…for the better I believe.

Tom,

I'm seeing more and more top-tier clubs spend the same $ per square foot on bunkers as on greens. However they spend their money, though, the issue for me isn't what top-tier clubs do; it's what mid-tier and discount courses do and how the game can be segmented and differentiated for different levels of players and budgets.

I just participated in Bob Randquist's seminar on Bunker/Hazard Maintenance.  Some of us already know this but upwards of 25% or more of most clubs maintenance budgets are spent maintaining hazards (which as Brad stated above, is as much or more than is spent on the greens).  It is a joke and one of the most obvious places where LOTS of money can be saved.  

We need to help reset expectations about what hazards are, why they are there, and how they should be maintained.  I think Bob did a great job opening many people's eyes about this and hopefully they will take this information back to their clubs and start educating their decision makers and golfers.  

I think this is the most important kind of discussion we can have on this board.

I don't think there'll ever be a uniformity in golf's playing fields; that's part of the charm. It's not hockey rinks or basketball courts we're talking about. But:

While this might be naive and simplistic, I do believe it's true: Build it (and/or maintain it) simply and efficiently, and they will come; build/maintain it simply and efficiently, and then PROMOTE it properly and widely, and they will come in droves; continue this practice proudly and consistently, and the course will succesfully fulfill its purpose for years to come.

I understand that the "promotion" of the latest $600 driver is an easier fit in the marketplace (lots of vested interests there), but I think it's a quantitative and not qualitative difference.

This is also partly why I find myself interested in the history of golf course architecture: 1) because a growing knowledge of what the game and the courses were like in the past (e.g. agronomy issues) might broaden the scope of what's considered acceptable in the future, and 2) like the cliche says, how do you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been?

Peter

Trying to tie two threads together, I feel that the "greening " of golf courses will depend largely on the drainage of the course. By trying to treat rain where it falls, and capturing the excess for irrigation, water issues could be less of a problem. From my one year working on golf courses, I noticed that rainwater had a much more positive impact on the golf course than the thousands of gallons that we pounded on the golf course each day.

Noticing how public courses in Denver responded to drought a few years ago, it seemed as if they just topped watering rough, and decreased maintenence standards. Upscale courses either bought more water rights, or started using effluent water to irrigate, leading to other problems. "Green" budgets will demand more creative ways to drain and irrigate the turf, which we wight begin to see in more of the same light.

Is another part of the problem the PGA Tour and not just the Agronomic Industry?  Mike Young stated above that many cannot say why they play golf.  I believe that same thought process (ignorance ot stupidity) extends into the expected conditions one desires or demands based on what they see on T.V.  Our society is driven by a covetousness desire that extends from homes to vehicles..... and ultimately into the Club dynamics.  We (private club) Club A cannot be anything less than Club B down the road.  Even when Club B has a national membership and a budget that is much greater than Club A.  Many Clubs do not realize the great little course that they already have (Brad's discussion on finding your own niche).  How many times have people on this board heard or even said "We want to take this Club to the next level"?  What does that really mean?  And does that club ultimately alienate a more accessible clientele (member base) by doing so?