The last time I was down at Burnham I noticed that the club was awarded the Boys Amateur Championship (I think this was the one) in 2011.  As part of the club shhhpiel, it was stated that the R&A is committed to rewarding clubs with championships that have "signed up" for the R&A's push to create maintenance conditions which are more sustainable.  I don't know if this means that clubs who have yet to sign on won't be considered for future championships, but the notice seemed to imply this.

A nice overview of the issue of sustainability in relation to golfers and expectations is indirectly discussed in the link provided.  

http://www.randa.org/news/files/Perfection.pdf

How do folks feel about the R&A using their clout in this manner?  Should the USGA consider a similar program?    

I know some people at Burnham are less than impressed with the program thus far (a few years running).  Burnham was famous for their fast & true greens not too many years ago.  These days, I have never seen the greens roll so poorly.  Still, I agree with the long-term goal and support the greenkeeper 100% because I believe the course will be better for it in the long run - even though I don't think the greens will ever roll as good as they once did.  The question is, should I expect the greens to be perfect?

Ciao  

Sean

The R&A tried to "improve" Dornoch for the 1985 Amateur Championship, using thier top hired gun (Jim Arthur), and the results were abominable.  The most important tournament ever played there was done so over an over-watered, over-fertilised slow and soft course that was a mockery of what links golf can be.  We also had an English greenkeeper at the time, who buggered off to greener pastures after he had ticked the Dornoch box in his resume, leaving a sloppy minefield behind.

The course came back, but it took 10-15 years of hard graft by a qualified but local greenkeeper who know the soil and the grasses and the weather and the beauties of fast and firm like the back of his hand to get it there.

It's OK for the R&A (and the USGA) to "think global," but they don't have a clue about "acting local."  IMHO, of course.  Greenkeeping is far too important to be left to golf |experts" and/or administrators.

Rich

Rich- Jim Arthur was very much as little water as possible and zero phosphates with minimal nitrogen, so if he was employed for the 85Am, he would have been advocating that policy and the mistake may have been in the actual greenkeeping.
There are a number of factors to consider with a low food and water propgramme aimed at encouraging fescues and bents  and each site is different, if courses have lots of rounds, lots of food may be needed to recover the grass, weather and temperature will also always play its part. Those figures must go into the calculation pot when you work out your food and water programme, however the end result to encourage the finer deep rooted grasses should be same(ish). It is not easy and even the best greenkeepers get caught out because weather/ rainfall is determined by someone else, if you have a low water programme and it rains like it did this summer in the early months, your plan is kinda ********

So many things can impact the condition of the turf, if our climate really is changing fast then greens are going to change compared to Halcyon days?

I played Hunstanton in 2004 and they were returfing a couple of fairways. A member said it was because the R&A had given poor advice when preparing for a tournament there (2003 Brabazon or 2005 Boys Amateur?). This month, (if I understand correctly) Phil reported that the members are still moaning about the state of their greens and placing the blame with the consultants forced on them.

It would be interesting to hear from Philip what the Hoylake member’s take on their course was a year later.  Alistair Beggs where are you?

The R&A's standards for course management are here

https://www.bestcourseforgolf.org/

and they are comprehensive to say the least.

I'm aware of this only because Littlestone (due to the extraordinary work of superintendent Malcolm Grand) was the first club to receive a certificate of approval for meeting the R&A's guidelines. I don't know if it was a precondition but the club hosted the British Ladies' Amateur in 2005, the same year that it received the certificate.

Adrian,

I think if you look a little deeper into the programme it doesn't say that modern green construction is a part of sustainability. Indeed, in most cases it has little to do with best practice and has become what it has due to GCAs, construction companies, etc. protecting themselves from being sued. If you have the correct rootzone mix (i.e. not pure sand) and use the correct grasses (i.e. fescues and bents (not Agrostis palustris)) then you will only need to add a little N and some K to the mix each year.

The problem with such programmes is when they are taken out of context or only partly implemented. You are correct in that on a parkland course you probably couldn't get 40'000 rounds and still have good conditions.

What is probably more relevant to which is the best method is the answer to the following question. How do you keep a modern green in good condition if you can't use chemicals?

This is the problem that greenkeepers in Denmark now have and for the rest of the EU its not that far away. In Denmark there has been a substantial slide towards the type of greenkeeping that the R&A are pushing.