Reading the thread about wetting agent got me thinking about the way golf course greenkeeping and design has gone in the last 40 or so years. In Britain up until the 1970’s many golf courses were quite. They therefore suffered less traffic damage that required growth to repair it and the greenkeepers were able to work on the course without having to get out of the way of as many gruops of players as before. This led to several things:


1.   Grass grew slower meaning it was not necessary to cut it as frequently meaning that fairways could be wider, greens mown from hand (a must until 1970) and playing areas required less water and fertiliser.

2.   This in turn meant that it needed less greenkeepers, less products used on the course meaning the costs were kept down.

3.   In turn you had healthier turf meaning less desease and better playing conditions in the winter (although of course very few people actually played in the winter

  As the use of fertiliser increased in the 70’s chasing the ‘great god green’ as Jim Arthur would put this led to increased cutting regimes meaning smaller playing areas as clubs could not afford to employ more greenkeepers and with more watering required to premote more growth the loss of F&F and good winter golfing conditions.

As the amount of play increased the extra revenue was used to employ more greenkeepers to make up for time lost during waiting for golfers. Also club facilities were improved and extended to cope with the extra volume of players.

To return fully to the F&F of the pre 70’s is very difficult for many clubs as they do not have the room to extend the playing areas and many modern courses have not been designed with this in mind. Indeed for many clubs it can only be achieved through machanical aeration through out the year which is very unpopular with many golfers.

What are then the awnsers to this problem in terms of philosophy of the course management and what can GCAs do in their design work to help alleviate this problem?.

Interesting post Jon. I see what you're saying. Times have changed!

I agree, F&F is really not that practical these days. I remember some of those old greenkeepers talking about how they used to cut the greens with push mowers. When you had to do that, the last thing they wanted was the grass to grow. And the golfers with all that austerity weren’t much into splashing out on new equipment and irrigation systems. Having said that, the firmest greens I’ve ever encountered were at Eastlake in Atlanta on a wet February but they did it through new strain bents, subair systems and a limitless budget to carry out all the thatch reduction operations they needed. But although they were firm, there was no loss of colour.

There’s another factor as well. How many superintendents have got the motivation to go for F&F when they’ll get a ton of grief and sod all thanks. Generally they would if given the choice because they understand the turf health and environmental benefits but……………well you know what it’s like.

For regular courses, it’s difficult.

Reading the thread about wetting agent got me thinking about the way golf course greenkeeping and design has gone in the last 40 or so years. In Britain up until the 1970’s many golf courses were quite. They therefore suffered less traffic damage that required growth to repair it and the greenkeepers were able to work on the course without having to get out of the way of as many gruops of players as before. This led to several things:


1.   Grass grew slower meaning it was not necessary to cut it as frequently meaning that fairways could be wider, greens mown from hand (a must until 1970) and playing areas required less water and fertiliser.

2.   This in turn meant that it needed less greenkeepers, less products used on the course meaning the costs were kept down.

3.   In turn you had healthier turf meaning less desease and better playing conditions in the winter (although of course very few people actually played in the winter

  As the use of fertiliser increased in the 70’s chasing the ‘great god green’ as Jim Arthur would put this led to increased cutting regimes meaning smaller playing areas as clubs could not afford to employ more greenkeepers and with more watering required to premote more growth the loss of F&F and good winter golfing conditions.

As the amount of play increased the extra revenue was used to employ more greenkeepers to make up for time lost during waiting for golfers. Also club facilities were improved and extended to cope with the extra volume of players.

To return fully to the F&F of the pre 70’s is very difficult for many clubs as they do not have the room to extend the playing areas and many modern courses have not been designed with this in mind. Indeed for many clubs it can only be achieved through machanical aeration through out the year which is very unpopular with many golfers.

What are then the awnsers to this problem in terms of philosophy of the course management and what can GCAs do in their design work to help alleviate this problem?.

Turn off the watering system?
Best
Dave

Jon,

I think it's two items, one relatively simple, the other far more complex.

# 1  I'd agree with David Miller.

# 2  It's a cultural issue.
       In most instances the cultural issue conflicts with # 1

When golfing members of clubs watch the PGA Tour on TV every week what do they see ?  
Lush, green conditions.
What do they want for their golf course ?
Lush, green conditions.

As much as WE love watching the British Open and the conditions of the golf course, member clubs aren't that enthused about replicating those conditions.

I'm old enough to remember when fairways browned out every July and August.  Then, brown, or brownish, yellowish, greenish conditions were acceptable.  But, not now.

And, to go from Lush, Green today, to F&F, vis a vis, brownish, yellowish, greenish conditions at some point in the future, is a difficult transition.

Shutting off the water isn't as easy as some seem to think.
The golf course will take a hit.
It's a process that takes several years.
And, many memberships aren't willing to go through years of transition, and many members are opposed to the brownish, yellowish, greenish look as they've NEVER seen it, NEVER experienced it from a playing perspective, hence, they resist it, opting for and promoting those conditions they see every week on the PGA Tour.

So, HOW DO YOU CHANGE THE CULTURE.

I think it has to start at the top.

I think that there are certain clubs that set the tempo for many things in golf.  Call it the ICON factor.

If Pine Valley, Winged Foot, Olympic, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Merion and other high profile clubs embark upon the path of F&F, others will follow.   It's the trickle down effect.

The leadership at these clubs, the ICONS of American golf, have to convince their memberships to embark upon this journey.  And once THEY do, the rest will follow.  Some quickly, some gradually and some never.

It's only through changing the culture that you'll be able to change the playing conditions.

I talked to our superintendent about this last week. Our course in Cincy, OH gets very wet during the summer. I asked him about keeping it drier but he said it's not possible. We have soil that is mostly clay plus hot and humid summers with night time temps sometimes not dropping below the upper 60s. He said if he lets the course dry out and get brown on tops of the nobs (we have a very hilly course with lumpy fairways) that the result will be turf loss. He said the bent fairways cannot handle these conditions without a significant amount of water. He is using wetting agents and growth retardants.

I just love the subject of this thread but this thread really does make me want to see the search facility on this website massively improved for easy of access for past threads and information.

Jeff - what is ET? How is it measured? If you already have a sprinkler system in, what can/needs to be done to retrofit it for F&F conditions and how roughly how much would that cost - tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands?