[JESII]

  “…our method of building Golf Courses varies somewhat from the general practice in that we use considerably greater quantities of material in developing construction.  This is brought about by blending slopes[/i] naturally into surrounding surfaces[/i], so as to present a pleasing effect to the eye, and not marring the landscape.  Naturally this sort of construction is more expensive than that obtained from stereotype ideas, but in the long run great savings may be effected in the maintenance expense by the elimination of costly hand work.”

Do the superintendents and architects on this site believe this to be true?

Wayne,

Nice find. My reading comprehension is generally poor, and my golf course construction experience is nill, but the two words I bolded in your quote seem reversed to me. Am I crazy? Not that it makes an difference to the content of the quote, just thought it interesting.


p.s. I think this quote also has a place on Tommy's drainage thread.


also, direct to the heart of that quote, and the meat of this thread...why would using more material in the construction process relate to more efficient ongoing maintenance? What would be an example?

[Peter Pallotta]

JES
and good catch re: the words you bolded. Wayne will know, while I'm just guessing, but the way I read it, Flynn's saying:

the extra material we bring in allows us to create slopes that blend pleasingly - and effectively - into the natural and pre-existing surfaces, and that solve drainage issues while also making maintenance easier and less expensive down the road

Peter


   

[David_Tepper]

With golf club initiation fees crossing $100,000, $250,000 and $500,000, I would imagine convincing the members of those clubs to accept a lower level of course maintenance will be a VERY tough sell.

Hopefully, the trend among some leading clubs in the country to thin out/remove trees (and the success they have had in doing so) has created some ripples that have encouraged other clubs to follow that lead.

Perhaps some leading clubs can demonstrate success in presenting a quality golf experience on a smaller budget and other clubs/course will follow. Personally, I have my doubts.

The two events which will cause a significant change in course maintenance are 1) a national depression or 2) a sustained drought.    

[Ken Moum]

way I read it, Flynn's saying:

the extra material we bring in allows us to create slopes that blend pleasingly - and effectively - into the natural and pre-existing surfaces, and that solve drainage issues while also making maintenance easier and less expensive down the road

Peter

That sounds exactly right. Think of how much less material is required to build chocolate drops and ramparts, compared to nicely blended slopes that lie on a natural angle of repose.

K

[wsmorrison]

Yep, you guys got it right.  Flynn used more material to blend in the architectural features into the natural surrounds.  This had the dual effect of looking more natural and also not fighting nature so that the slopes would not require maintenance over time to keep them from falling apart.  Natural angles or angles of repose are more stable than sharp fall-offs that other architects used on the man-made features.  Flynn presented to the Rockefeller family that there is additional upfront costs to constructing this way but that over time, the maintenance costs (which would eventually dwarf the construction costs) would be minimized over the long run.  As wealthy as they were, it was completely against their nature to waste money.  Flynn convinced them the right way to go about construction was to do it with more material and it was done with great success.

Here is a photo of the 7th green at Pocantico Hills:



By the way, here is a photo of a 300-year old Oak along the left rough of the 7th hole.

[JESII]

David Tepper,

I think you're initiation fee examples are extreme. Sure there are a few in that price range, but they are not who this conversation is for. I guess this touches on the tiered approach Brad Klein is talking about. 'Money as no object' could be one tier.

I also disagree with the notion of expecting certain clubs to act in a manner not neccesarily in their own best interests, but rather as a means of influencing others. I think each club should be responsible for itself and not worry about "keeping up with the Jones'". This is not to say it doesn't happen, but I'd have a hard time understanding why my green committee might do something because Merion did, even if it worked great there. There must be a sensible approach within the specific constraints of our club and its finances and goals.


 

The two events which will cause a significant change in course maintenance are 1) a national depression or 2) a sustained drought

Do you think either of those occurrences would have a significant effect on course architecture?

[JESII]

Wayne,

I thought Flynn was known as the cut-and-fill guy...

What are examples of this need for bringing in more material?

[Ken Moum]

The two events which will cause a significant change in course maintenance are 1) a national depression or 2) a sustained drought

Do you think either of those occurrences would have a significant effect on course architecture?

They did the last time....

Look at how much the golf community "forgot" about good architecture between 1930-something and the 1960s, when course building boomed again.

It's taken 40-odd years to regain that knowledge, IMHO, and I'd hate to see it disappear again.

[Steve Okula]

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".  

The US agronomic industry is a result of the demands of the US golf industry, not the cause of it. It's a demand and supply market place. If golfers didn't want lush, green, exquisitely manicured golf courses, then none would exist, regardless of what some fictional agronomic cabal might try to foist upon them.

[David_Tepper]

JES II -

I agree with what you are saying more than you think. Yes, high-end "money is no object" golf clubs exist in a universe of their own, but I would argue that there are far more of them than you think. There must be a dozen or more clubs in the SF Bay Area with 6-digit initiation fees.

Unfortunately, they also represent a model and standard to which too many other middle-tier golf clubs aspire. Let's face it - status, prestige and "keeping up with" (or "staying ahead of") the Jones is a big part of the world of golf. When is the last time you have seen a club build a smaller clubhouse or aspire to a "maintenace meld" practiced by a club of lesser perceived status? You are fighting one of the less attractive aspects of human nature here.

I did not mean to imply that a club should employ any maintenance practices that are not in their best interest. I don't think I said that. What I tried to say is that, if a well-known club is successful in getting more (or giving up less) out of their maintenance budget, it might set an example and encourage other clubs to do the same.    

With regards to the impact of a depression or a drought that would lead to meaningful restrictions in availablilty of water, I think either event clearly would impact GCA. Based upon what I have read here, the Depression of the 1930's led to changes in many golf course (such as filling in bunkers, smaller greens, etc.). I drought would likely lead to firmer and faster courses and some acceptance of the notion that "greener is not necessarily better."

DT    

     

 

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

He was, for the most part, a cut and fill guy.  It is how much fill he took out and how he used it.  I'll post some photographs shortly.

[JESII]

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 gotta do it...

Mark, below are paraphrased examples of hazards from your posts on your recent thread...

Topography/contour... A bunkerless hole with no water features can be loaded with other types of challenge, interest, and peril, "hazardous conditions impacting your golf score"....Short grass indeed can be a "hazard"....anything that can add to the interest and challenge of a golf hole.

Based on that, I think 100% of Huntingdon Valley's maintenance budget is spent on hazards...make that 100% minus the cost to change hole locations...

[JESII]

David,

I guess you're right, we're pretty well on the same page. I would figure San Fran, NYCand maybe one or two other metro areas might be the only ones with more than one or two clubs with six figure initiation fees. South Florida and Phoenix area as well probably. NYC, Boston?, LA?  I cannot think of any here in and around Philly, but I don't pay too much attention.

On the rest, I think we agree.

[David_Tepper]

JES II -

Thumb thru a copy of LINKS magazine or the real estate pages of Friday's Wall Street Journal. There are adverts for dozens of luxury clubs being developed in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Arizona, Hawaii, etc.  They are all aiming at the "cost is no object" market and the apptetite for these project seems insatiable. Housing lots typically start at $1mil or more.

A month ago, the WSJ ran an article about the newly-built $2mil condos in Manahattan that are being bought by people who only use them a couple weeks of the year.  

Is this a great country or what?    

DT

[JESII]

DT,

Is buying a lot at one of those places typically seperate from the club membership? Financially? If I buy a $2,000,000 lot with plans on building a $2,000,000 home, am I also paying $150,000 to be able to play golf?

[JESII]

Oh, and yes, agreed on the great country.

[David_Tepper]

JES II -

Since I am not shopping among ANY of those $1mil or $2mil lot developments, I cannot say for sure. But my sense is that you have to spend that money to buy one of those lots just to have the "privilege" of then paying a 6-digit initiation fee to join the affiliated golf club.

DT

[RJ_Daley]

It seems many here are discussing the "coming impact of stressed green budgets on"....maintenance and aesthetics.

But, what about the "coming impact of stressed green budgets on architecture", as Pat posted?

I think that the deleterious effect on architecture is the perception that constuction and design must revert to the excessively and plainly designed golf course and its features.  

R.B. Harris was in my understanding, the architect that took primary attention to maintenance budget efficiencies to the extreme and designed courses that would cost the least to maintain, at the expense of more aesthetic look and complex construction methods.  That also effiected the strategic placement of his hazards.

So, if there is a coming stress on green budgets, due to drought, rising water costs, chemical cost increases, machinery cost rises, and continued high expectations for the superficial idea that green and lush is important, then architecture/design will drift back to the banal, it seems to me.  Whether it is new construction or remodelling; creativity of design might suffer.

[JESII]

RJ,

Wouldn't you think creativity might really have a chance to shine through in the environment you and Kmoun describe?

The way you imply it, creativity is linked to dollars spent. Seems a bit backwards to me. What do you think?

[Ken Moum]

RJ,

Wouldn't you think creativity might really have a chance to shine through in the environment you and Kmoun describe?

You'd like to think that it would, but based on the courses I grew up playing (mostly built in the post-war era) I don't have a lot of optimism.

IMHO, the problem might well be that, unlike linksland, most of America requires a fair bit of earth-moving to create a golf course that is genuinely interesting.

Of course, I grew up on the edge valley of the Red River of the North, where elevation changes are a handful of feet per mile.

K

[David_Tepper]

Here is an idea for clubs whose course maintenance budgets are under stress - how about encouraging/requiring the membership to spend 4 hours a year out on the course sanding/seeding divots, raking bunkers, repairing ball marks on the greens, picking up trash & fallen tree branches, raking leaves, etc.? Have a "work party" 2 or 3 Saturday mornings a year and only let those members who participate play the following Saturday morning.  

Not only would it benefit the course and allow the grounds crew to spend their time on more productive projects, the membership might gain a better perspective on just how much work it takes to get their course into playable shape.

My hat's off to any club board that could make this happen!    

[JESII]

K,

I'm sure some areas have terrain more conducive to golf than others, but something in your post made me realize just what would cause the decline of architectural creativity in a depression like financial state...the creative (top notch) architects would find something else to do to make money. Doesn't it make sense that the majority of the top guys we know today have the skills to excel in other areas if they ended up there?

[Joe Hancock]

David Tepper,

Before I give my opinion on volunteerism, let me first say that my attitude is more of my personal management style and preference than it is right or a wrong thing.

Having said that, I have done what you suggested, as a superintendent. The issue I had after the volunteerism was completed was a feeling or sense of obligation from a few of the volunteers. There were "suggestions" from some that we (the course) owed them something, whether it was carts for no charge whenever they asked or deep discounts on pro shop merchandise, etc.

The whole thing, even though created by a few bad apples, was enough to sour me on recruiting that type of volunteerism at a facility where people are already paying for a service.

I hope it works for others, it just isn't something I'm good at, after the fact.

Joe

[David_Tepper]

Joe H. -

You have my admiration and respect for at least trying to do what I suggested.

Are you a super at a private club or a daily-fee course? My suggestion was really aimed at private clubs where the greens committe & club board would initiate such a program and insulate the club pro & the club super from the pressure you experienced to reciprocate in someway to those who volunteered. As I suggested in my post, the "reward" to those who volunteer (at a private club) could simply be getting the privilege to get a teetime the next Saturday morning.

DT

   

[Joe Hancock]

David,

It was long ago, when I was a super at a semi-private facility. Now, I work alongside Mike DeVries, as well as continue to be a super and co-owner of a mom-and-pop 18 hole daily fee facility.

Thanks for the comments,

Joe

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()