[James Bennett]

Michael:

Up until about 12 years ago, we, at GMGC, had one of the oddest combinations of fairway grass ever known in the northeast. It was rye and bermuda and we may've been the only club up here that had a combo like that.

TE Paul

What turf combination do you have today for your fairways?  Is it an improvement?  I had assumed that bermuda wouldn't survive in Philadelphia winters, but it must have.

Many of the great Melbourne sand-belt course have used a two-grass policy, although most have switched to a pure form a the new hybrid bermudas/couches (this was an earlier typo, I had said 'bents' - my bad).  Some, however, continue with the two-grass policy, whether it be common couch (bermuda) and old poa (eg Royal Melbourne, Commonwealth) whilst some are trying new strands with a variety of soft grasses eg Legend and rye/fine fescue.  The latter are in their early stages of development, working out how to manage them for year-round play and preventing weed invasion (eg new poa).  The use of couch (bermuda) reduces the requirement for water in summer whilst the soft grass provides a playing surface in winter when the couch (bermuda) is dormant.

My Adelaide club (Blackwood) has mainly 100% santa anna fairways (some windsor green couch).  Providing a playing surface in winter, particulalry in shaded areas and poorly drained areas is a challenge.  However, the condition in summer (including the extreme hot days), the reduction in irrigation and the ease of maintenance is excellent.  Getting a year-round result requires a definite strategy that can involve trading off presentation at one time of the year for the benefit of another.  

___________________________________________

Regarding the success (or otherwise) of the A and G series in hot, humid conditions, The Australian supt's published the comments of the Sydney-based superintendents that have implemented these grasses.  They 'enjoy' this type of weeather every year, whereas Adelaide and Melbourne don't (dry summers).  One of their general comments was on managing/preventing the onset of disease during hot humid conditions.

Sorry, I can't find the article on their web-site.  If someone wants a copy of the article (Tom Paul perhaps), I'll send it (I have a hard copy).  Please IM me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Greater Philadelphia would seem to be too far north for Bermuda.

Are you certain that it was Bermuda ?

If so, what type of Bermuda, and, how did the Bermuda get there in the first place.

I found no mention of the introduction of Bermuda grass in the club's excellent booklet on its Design Evolution, written by Charles E Lighthall and some other member.

Gulf Mills presents an interesting case study.

Built in 1916 by Donald Ross, in 1925 Toomey and Flynn rebuilt 17 of it's greens.  One would have to ask, WHY ?
And, why wasn't Ross retained for that work ?
Then, in 1927 Ross is brought back in again.
One would have to again ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Toomey and Flynn retained for that work ?
Then, in 1934 Perry Maxwell is brought in.
One would have to ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Ross or Flynn Brought back in again ?
Maxwell returned in 1937 and 1938.
Then, in 1940 Wayne Stiles was brought in.
One would have to ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Ross, Flynn or Maxwell brought back in ?
Then, in 1947 James McGovern was brought back in.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Ross, Flynn, Maxwell or Stiles brought back in ?
Then, in 1956 and 1958 Willliam Gordon was brought it.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, who were the other candidates considered ?
Then, in 1966 Robert Trent Jones was brought in.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, why wasn't William Gordon brought back in ?
Then in 1992, they Bring Tom Fazio in.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, one has to ask why they didn't bring RTJ back in ?

I think it's one of the most fascinating studies in a golf courses evolution that I've ever seen.
I'm particularly interested in how the club determined the work they wanted done at each point, assuming that they had an inkling of what they wanted done before the architects set foot on the property, and, how they went about choosing each architect, at each point in time.

Again, it's fascinating stuff.

Reviewing the quiltlike composition of the golf course it would be interesting to know what the club wanted and how they decided to choose Gil Hanse to do their most recent work.

I'd also be interested in the form of governance employed at the club.  Was their continuity in the leadership, vis a vis Seminole and Pine Valley, or was there a good deal of turnover in the leadership.

One would presume that there's a direct relationship between the timing and the number of different architects involved and the format for governance of the club.

It's very interesting.

[PThomas]

Pat --- glad to hear you've been posting on the water issue for a long time!  you say some other smart stuff too sometimes Pat !

[Mike_Cirba]

TEPaul,

Greater Philadelphia would seem to be too far north for Bermuda.

Are you certain that it was Bermuda ?

If so, what type of Bermuda, and, how did the Bermuda get there in the first place.

I found no mention of the introduction of Bermuda grass in the club's excellent booklet on its Design Evolution, written by Charles E Lighthall and some other member.

Gulf Mills presents an interesting case study.

Built in 1916 by Donald Ross, in 1925 Toomey and Flynn rebuilt 17 of it's greens.  One would have to ask, WHY ?
And, why wasn't Ross retained for that work ?
Then, in 1927 Ross is brought back in again.
One would have to again ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Toomey and Flynn retained for that work ?
Then, in 1934 Perry Maxwell is brought in.
One would have to ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Ross or Flynn Brought back in again ?
Maxwell returned in 1937 and 1938.
Then, in 1940 Wayne Stiles was brought in.
One would have to ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Ross, Flynn or Maxwell brought back in ?
Then, in 1947 James McGovern was brought back in.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, why weren't Ross, Flynn, Maxwell or Stiles brought back in ?
Then, in 1956 and 1958 Willliam Gordon was brought it.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, who were the other candidates considered ?
Then, in 1966 Robert Trent Jones was brought in.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, why wasn't William Gordon brought back in ?
Then in 1992, they Bring Tom Fazio in.
One has to ask, WHY ?
And, one has to ask why they didn't bring RTJ back in ?

I think it's one of the most fascinating studies in a golf courses evolution that I've ever seen.
I'm particularly interested in how the club determined the work they wanted done at each point, assuming that they had an inkling of what they wanted done before the architects set foot on the property, and, how they went about choosing each architect, at each point in time.

Again, it's fascinating stuff.

Reviewing the quiltlike composition of the golf course it would be interesting to know what the club wanted and how they decided to choose Gil Hanse to do their most recent work.

I'd also be interested in the form of governance employed at the club.  Was their continuity in the leadership, vis a vis Seminole and Pine Valley, or was there a good deal of turnover in the leadership.

One would presume that there's a direct relationship between the timing and the number of different architects involved and the format for governance of the club.

It's very interesting.

Patrick,

At the risk of pissing off Tom Paul, I feel comfortable in divulging the following excerpt from the "Mission Statement" of Gulph Mills Golf Club, circa 1916, section II, paragraph 15 through 21;

"And, in the beginning, there were former members of Merion Golf Club, who under great personal sacrifice and courage, and who in their prescient state realized that new pot bunkers were going to be built along the creek of the 5th hole in coming years, that would exist only for 15 minutes of fame, only to be resurrected 70 years later, and lo, they became pissed."

"So, these intrepid adventurers, realizing that play would be slowed interminably by golfers pondering the possible purpose of such useless bunkers, decided to form their own club for the healthy and useful pursuit of golf".

"In an effort to ensure that future generations of researchers and interested onlookers would be continually perplexed, we set forth the following dictate as to the course at Gulph Mills."

"As part of our civic duty to those less fortunate in our society, we will continue to employ those who make their livelihood in the field of golf course architecture, knowing full well that whatever mistakes they make can be eradicated by future generations, who can restore the course to its original glory and position."

"The founders believe there will come a day when the sons of our sons will look upon our actions with great interest and curiosity, and find our decisions to be of considerable reason for debate and dissection, and we will go to our final resting places knowing that we had a hell of a lot of fun just trying out different things, and tinkering around with our course."

"Someday, when we meet again in the great beyond, we'll all share a good laugh"

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Michael:

What do you think the feasiblity is of Philadelphia golf courses having bermuda grass from about the middle of June to Labor Day and then transition back to our bents the rest of the time each year?

Come on all you sophisticated agronomists and supers out there who're always throwing around these big words none of us laymen understand---that would be a piece of cake, right? Basically just a simple matter of logistics, right? If you guys can't figure out how to sod entire courses out of bent and into bermuda overnight on June 15, and then sod back out of bermuda and into bent overnight on Sept 1, I think you're all worthless and should have your salaries slashed by at least half.

Tom-

  Thanks!  That's one of the reasons I got OUT of the club industry...these inane demands by members!  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #52 I can actually pretty much answer all your questions as to why so many architects were brought into GMGC over the years.

The reason I can answer those questions (in a sometimes slighty general but often specific way) is the minutes of GMGC are complete from the very begin in 1916 to date and also because I got lucky when I did that design evolution report and thoroughly interviewed particularly two men (both gone now) who were there so long and involved in those decisions or well aware of the reasons for them. One man remembered everything from about the mid 1930 and the other from 1924!! It was surprising to me because both men I'd known so long and never had thought they went back that far in the club, particularly the one who remembered everything for 1924.

It should also be pointed out that in a book like Cornish & Whitten the list of architects who came into GMGC seems unusually long in comparison to other clubs. There's an interesting reason, in my opinion, the list of architects attributed to GMGC seems unusually long. It seems long because GMGC kept records of all of it and C&W could avail themselves of that very easily while at other clubs those records simply did not exist for them (C&W) and they had no real way of telling who did what at other clubs over the years. I feel if other clubs as old as ours had the comprehensive records we do the list of architects at other clubs would be perhaps as long as ours or in some cases longer.

What I'm also aware of but did not record as specifically in that design evolution report were various committee changes to architecture that were actually not particularly long---eg a bunker added or removed or a mound removed here and there. Whenever GMGC decided to make architectural changes they pretty much consulted with a golf architect.

But in general to sometimes very specific detail I can answer the whys of just about all your questions in post #52. Are you sure you really want to know? Perhaps you do, even if it may not always be for the reasons or motivations you may imagine.

As to why GMGC was started by that group from the Merion Cricket club (Merion East and West) it was simply because they felt Merion's golf courses had become far too crowded. GMGC was founded pretty much on ease of play and remarkably that theme of the club dedicatedly carries through to today. GMGC has never done more than 15,000 rounds in a year and sometimes quite a bit less.

[Dan Herrmann]

"Pat - thanks for saying the same things I have also posted  several times!"

Paul:

Pat tends to do that all the time. He repeats what others have said acting like he thought of it. He's been repeating the things I've taught him for years now. I guess that's a sign of a great Master Teacher, though, to impart things in such a way so the little novice student actually thinks he thought of it.

Nah - Pat just says it better than I do

[TEPaul]

Dan:

That's probably so. Even if Pat basically parrots later most everything he learns from me he does say it well. At least he answers questions with direct statements rather than answer questions just with other questions as some do far too much of.

The reason Pat's such a "Grand Inquisitor" is because he dreamt of being a trial lawyer when he was a little kid but his mommy and daddy wouldn't let him be that. They made him go into the INsurance business. When I call Pat up at his office his secretary always asks me which one I want---Jr or Sr? I always tell her I have no idea and to just connect me to that big duffus in the office who argues with everyone all the time. Without another word she always connects me to the Pat we know.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I am interested in knowing why a club, having retained an architect for work, would complete that work, and then within a relatively short period of time bring in another architect, rather than the previous one, to embark upon another project.

On the blind, it would appear that leadership factions were responsible.  That rather than retain the "architect of record" the new group in charge wanted to go off on their own, sort of denying their legacy, and bring in "their man".  And that this process repeated itself, wherein, had there been a grooming process and continuity of leadership this never would have happened.

I find it an interesting study.

While your theory of attribution on the retention of numerous architects is grounded in the detailed record keeping, I would disagree.

The architects of record were prominent men of their time, and abandoning those architectural authors, in an attempt to repeatedly alter the architecture of the golf course, seems grounded in the desire for authoring radical departures from their predecessors ideas and deeds rather than record keeping prowess.

Again, on the blind, it would appear that as each ruling faction gained power they dismissed the work done previoiusly and set out to place their own architectural fingerprints on the golf course.

I understand the loss of practice range land and the impact on the golf course, that's an error that almost every club repeats, but, that doesn't explain why a NEW architect rather than the architect of record was retained.

[RJ_Daley]

Well it sure feels good to come in here
And just pull up a seat
A frosty mug of a cool one
Helps to beat the heat
These old dog days of summer
Lord I’ll be glad when they’re gone
It’s too hot to fish and
Too hot for golf and
Too cold at home

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You can think whatever you like about why GMGC brought in various architects. In those days that's just the way it was. Those people simply felt if they thought they needed to do something or there was some problem basically brought in some architect who was in town.

To look at the possiblity of a range which ended up altering #10, #12, #13 was basically because Mr De La Cour heard RTJ was over at Merion that day. He went over there and got him and brought him over to GMGC for about an hour for advice. That's the way things went back then.

Perry Maxwell was around PVGC and some other courses around here and they tapped him too.

That's the way it was when they thought something needed to be done or there was a problem like our greens failing in the early 1920. Flynn was about five miles away so they got him over. Most all these people knew each other anyway.

You show me some Ross golf course that called Donald Ross to come back in every time they thought they had a problem. I'm afraid Donald Ross was a bit too busy to be doing follow up stuff like that on most of the courses under his name.

In 1927 Ross was here in town and they got him over. That was the first time we had an architect go over the entire course to make any necessary improvements. That's what Ross did because he was around the area. I have his report in which he went over almost every hole and made recommendations, many of which were done.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Your reply confirms my theory.

You keep refering to THEY as if it's the same individuals who keep repeating this process over a period of 76 years.

It would seem that the President, or a very influential member would, with or without the consent of the club, invite whoever was in town over for tea and crumpets and a shot at the golf course.

One would think, if there was a problem, that the club would seek the architect of record to address that problem ASAP, as opposed to putting it off until someone of note was in the area.

The other KEY question is:

Was there really a problem to be addressed ?

Or, did the invite contain an inherent understanding that the NEW architect would do something to "make his mark" and glorify the member who extended the invitation ?

Now don't go getting defensive about this matter.

Take a step back, and pretend that the process occured, not at GMCC, but at some other club.  Surely, one has to wonder how this very unusual parade of architects and changes to the golf course occured, especially when one of the most prominent and respected architects of all time designed the golf course.

I would guess that the membership was composed of a great number of successful, enteprenurial individuals who tended to be the captain of their ship, and as such, took it upon themselves to open the architectural door to transients.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Your reply confirms my theory."

Pat:

What is your theory? Is it that those who run clubs such as mine are all egomaniacs, all out to put their stamp on the architecture of the course when they have the opportunity? If so, that may be somewhat true in some cases but certainly not all. If something wasn't working well on the course and that became apparent within the membership they tended to do something about it. There was one who added some bunkers in-house for perhaps personal reasons.

"You keep refering to THEY as if it's the same individuals who keep repeating this process over a period of 76 years."

"They" I only refer to as those who ran the club over the last 75 years. They certainly weren't always the same people.

"It would seem that the President, or a very influential member would, with or without the consent of the club, invite whoever was in town over for tea and crumpets and a shot at the golf course."

GMGC has always been a club run by a few committees. On the face of it it may seem that's a structure that would be conducive to meddling with the course on a rotating basis. Perhaps it was but I've never heard that there was any particular contention about it within the membership. In most cases it appears the administrations of the club was responding to concerns about the course, whether it was for the reasons Maxwell came in or for the reason that they felt they needed to have a practice range, or to correct a danger problem on the first hole with the road right. With most of the architects who came in I can see what they percieved the problem or need to be. The only architects I really can't understand well or can't agree it was particularly reasonable were Stiles, McGovern and Gordon. I listed Fazio in that book but he made a recommendation basically to fix an RTJ redesign problem and it was never done basically because it would've been very expensive. Fazio did recommend some tee adjustments and removing the road crossing #3 but did say the history of the road should be determined before doing that. It was and I hope that road always remains.

"One would think, if there was a problem, that the club would seek the architect of record to address that problem ASAP, as opposed to putting it off until someone of note was in the area."

One may think that and perhaps they tried to seek Donald Ross's advice, but perhaps not. In those days just as today, but perhaps far more so, if a club has a problem or need there is a feeling that any architect will do. I recall you implying such a thing just as long as the club tells him precisely what to do. What do you call that----"If you accept the King's shilling, you do the King's bidding.....?"  

"The other KEY question is:
Was there really a problem to be addressed?"

One can only read the minutes to try to determine if the club thought so. Unfortunately I wasn' there in the 1920s through 1960s.

"Or, did the invite contain an inherent understanding that the NEW architect would do something to "make his mark" and glorify the member who extended the invitation?"

I don't see any evidence of that. The membership and those who ran the club are a pretty understated crowd compared to other clubs. They're sort of Quaker in culture and the basic ethos is to appear to not make a mark and be pretty understated and quiet about what one does. Of course it may be very different in other golf clubs---I certainly don't deny that.

"Now don't go getting defensive about this matter."

I'm not at all defensive. If you want to ask me about my club and course and the history of it I don't mind at all telling you what it is and wasl, as far as I know. Today GMGC seems to consider me to be their historian, and certainly in an architectural sense. I know you know why that is as I gave you some copies of that design evolution report. If you'd prefer to just guess what the facts were at GMGC with the membership, the administrations, the architects that came in there to fit what went on there into some theory of yours, I have no problem with that. But I think I probably know more about why things happened there over the years than you do.

"Take a step back, and pretend that the process occured, not at GMCC, but at some other club.  Surely, one has to wonder how this very unusual parade of architects and changes to the golf course occured, especially when one of the most prominent and respected architects of all time designed the golf course."

You pretend that if you'd like, particularly if it fits your theory. I'd prefer to stick with the facts of the evolution of my course as I know them and the facts of the reasons why they did what they did.

There's a feeling on this website that all those at all clubs who made changes to their courses were egomaniacs and power influenced people who were all out to make their mark when they had the opportunity. While that may've been true in some cases it wasn't true in all cases, in my opinion. The times that preceded ours were very different than ours. There was not the concept or idea of restorations, master plans or even architectural preservation back then, and you know that to be true, or at least you should if you wish to look at that history accurately. That does not mean those that preceded us were bad people or egomaniacal people, they simply lived and operated in another era that was in many ways different than ours. Why has this era upon us now to restore and perserve some of these old courses occured Pat? Do you think it's because we're smarter or less egotistical than our forefathers were? I don't. I think it's simply a logical evolution and cycle of the way the world works with an art form such as golf course architecture. Today wer're in the "art coming out of the attic" cycle. If one is to truly understand it intelligently one needs to ask and understand why that art went into the attic in the first place. I believe, that only then, can we strive to insure that that does not happen again.

"I would guess that the membership was composed of a great number of successful, enteprenurial individuals who tended to be the captain of their ship, and as such, took it upon themselves to open the architectural door to transients."

Hard to say what each and every personality was of some of those who preceded us today at GMGC. There is only one little history book done of the club, and to say the least it's incredibly hilarious and in some cases shows a club and culture and ethos that was frugal, albeit probably very wealthy, quakerish and concerned with things that can definitely can make us laugh today.

Through the years the club had presidents that only served for two years, and always with a few committees dedicated to and responsible for their purviews. My Grandfather was one notable exception. He served as the president for perhaps ten or a dozen years. The minutes of the board meetings under his administration show an on-going concern that was seemingly discussed for years. That was whether or not to serve chamgagne at the board meetings. Apparenty some didn't think that was a good idea but apparently he thought not to do that was virtually unthinkable. That on-going debate seemed to take most of the time of the board meetings in his long tenure as the president of the golf club.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Thanks for the response.

Ross and Maxwell were giants, legends in the field of golf course architecture, and that's what interested me.

What was it about the course, designed by a spectacular architect, and his immediate successor, that compelled the membership to seek to alter that design, not once, not twice, but on numerous occassions ?

I find it puzzling.

What was the membership generally and specifically disatisfied with ?

And, how do the Board minutes reflect the genesis of the awareness of this disatisfaction ?

[Dave_Miller]

It seems like the excessive heat and humidity has taken an unusual toll on some of the courses in Philadelphia.

Word is that Aronimink lost their A-4 greens after the Philly Open, followed a week or so later by another major outing (Sigel Charity event).

Llanerch, that's holding the US Amateur qualifier in rotation with Rolling Green today and tomorrow lost their tees and a good deal of fairway turf. I even heard Rolling Green may be struggling too.

Merion East lost a bit of green turf and has shut down until the Amateur to keep the course in some heightened "comfort zone".

The good news is apparently Philly C.C. that's doing the US Am tournament on-site qualifier with Merion East into match play is doing great.

There're probably a ton of other courses around here that're stuggling agronomically due to this heat and humidity.

How's it going this summer in other regions?

Tommy:
No problems here at Charles River and most other Boston area courses.  Very few days with High humidity.  Temp's have been for the most part great.
Best
Dave

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Miller,

No need to rub it in.

On the other hand, I don't think your spring, if you ever had one, produced the greatest of golfing conditions.

Please say "hello" to Dan, Ed and Chuckie for me.

[Dave_Miller]

Dave Miller,

No need to rub it in.

On the other hand, I don't think your spring, if you ever had one, produced the greatest of golfing conditions.

Please say "hello" to Dan, Ed and Chuckie for me.

Patrick:
Spring in New England is an oxymoron
Will say hello to all for you.
Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

"Tommy:
No problems here at Charles River and most other Boston area courses.  Very few days with High humidity.  Temp's have been for the most part great."

Dave:

We stopped in to look at Philly C.C. with the super and then walked around Merion East. I dropped in to say hi to head pro Scott Nye who said he's hearing this heat wave has effected courses from Northern Virginia up to the Poconos. Some of those in the business seem to be saying if you can grow grass in that "suicide belt" you can grow grass anywhere. Philly Country looked great and Merion East looked OK too. They say it's come around a lot in less than a week. They were putting a lot of water on it during the couple of hours we were at Merion (one of them caught me looking the wrong way).  

[TEPaul]

"What was it about the course, designed by a spectacular architect, and his immediate successor, that compelled the membership to seek to alter that design, not once, not twice, but on numerous occassions ?
I find it puzzling.
What was the membership generally and specifically disatisfied with?"

Pat:

Rather than go through the entire evolution of the course just ask me about any change and I'll tell you why it occured.

[JESII]

A couple of questions about the original topic:
1) What has made this summer "tougher" than previous summers?
2) If I am correct, that this summer is not too far from the norm (climate-wise), why are we not using grasses that can handle the weather extremes the mid-atlantic region endures?
3) What happens to Fisher's Island's grass when they suffer a drought for any sustained period? (does Donnie have any type of irrigation available for greens or anything?)
4) What would it take for club decision makers to follow the lead towards heartier (and occasionally brown) grass?

[TEPaul]

"3) What happens to Fisher's Island's grass when they suffer a drought for any sustained period? (does Donnie have any type of irrigation available for greens or anything?)"

Sully:

As you can see from those photos of Fishers Island, that course has irrigation on tees and greens but not their fairways. Newport and Maidstone are the same. When those courses have periods of real lack of rain or drought conditions the grass on those fairways goes totally brown. Is it dead? No. It just goes dormant, that's why it's so brown. When it rains a good deal in about a couple of days it'll start to get green again (believe me, I've seen it do that).

"4) What would it take for club decision makers to follow the lead towards heartier (and occasionally brown) grass?"

Basically club decision makers would need to accept those kinds of super brown fairway conditions in those times of no rain. Could they do that instantly? Of course not----HVGC is perhaps one of only a few who has made the transition from practices that were basically over-irrigation to what they have now which is minimal irrigation. As you know that took them years to do. Scott Anderson will tell you that transition takes some years to accomplish with significant turf loss (he said 20-30% annually) as the grasses that can't survive die off and the grasses that can survive take their place.

Courses like Fishers have always been that way. HVGC wasn't!

[JESII]

Thanks Tom,

I am playing very little golf these days and when I do it is generally at home, so I am reacting to what I hear about soaking wet golf courses and very unhealthy grass and have to wonder why this "leaner and meaner" maintenance is not practiced as widely as it could be.

I have heard you say that more and more clubs are adopting this methodology, but it seems to me that there are enough intelligent people at each golf course to see that sacrificing a few years of mediocre turf conditions would be well worth the investment 10 years down the road.

[Craig Sweet]

My observations are MOST superintendents try to maintain green, but firm conditions. Green looks good, firm plays better. But this is a narrow "window" and is easily messed up by weather. A big rain or two, and green and firm is now "swampy slow". A week of 95 plus and some wind, and green and firm is mottled and firm.

The easiest conditions to maintain, I would guess, are the extremes. Very green and lush/wet slow or dry and brown fast.

If that's the case, which is the easier "sell" and most acceptible to the membership?

[JESII]

My observations are MOST superintendents try to maintain green, but firm conditions. Green looks good, firm plays better. But this is a narrow "window" and is easily messed up by weather. A big rain or two, and green and firm is now "swampy slow". A week of 95 plus and some wind, and green and firm is mottled and firm.

The easiest conditions to maintain, I would guess, are the extremes. Very green and lush/wet slow or dry and brown fast.

If that's the case, which is the easier "sell" and most acceptible to the membership?

Craig,

I can't disagree with any of your post.

In answer to you final question (which is also the question I was driving towards), you tell me; You can have good and occasionally great playing conditions with the real risk of losing your golf course to disease due to frequent heat and humidity. Or you can have good and occasionally great playing conditions (after a couple years of mediocre conditions) and be in a secure place as far as re-investing in re-grassing the golf course every X number of years.

These positions are based on my experiences of seeing one of two things at golf courses in the mid-atlantic region: Consistently mediocre playing conditions, or shutting down a course to re-grass. I would love a count of the number of clubs in the immediate Philadelphia suburbs that have gone the re-grassing route over the last 15 years.

[TEPaul]

"so I am reacting to what I hear about soaking wet golf courses and very unhealthy grass and have to wonder why this "leaner and meaner" maintenance is not practiced as widely as it could be.
I have heard you say that more and more clubs are adopting this methodology, but it seems to me that there are enough intelligent people at each golf course to see that sacrificing a few years of mediocre turf conditions would be well worth the investment 10 years down the road."

Sully:

I know it's hard to understand why more clubs have not done this. There're obviously many reasons but primarily because they just don't understand this entire methodology or even the realities of grass.

There's little doubt that most people seem to like deep green grass golf courses. There's also little doubt that most people believe that's the healthiest type of grass to have all the time. That fact, obviously is a real misunderstanding and misperception in some of the details of agronomy and turf management under various conditions. In fact the opposite may be the case. The fact that so many people didn't know that and still don't is probably a lot of the reason more clubs haven't done what HVGC has done. (agronomy you describe as "lean and mean").

I think more are beginning to figure this out now but all those clubs have memberships the majority of which simply do not understand the realities of golf agronomy. Hopefully, little by little they will come to understand it.

Golf agronomy, particularly in this country has for some decades now developing under fairly artifical (unnatural) management processes---eg artifiical irrigation whenever it wants it and needs it---chemicals to balance out whatever ails it that day.

Perhaps like gasoline, it's increased price due to limited supplies has made people think of alternatives. No one cared when gas cost 25 cents a gallon but they probaby do when it costs $3-5 a gallon. The availability of water in a general or regional sense is probably going down the same road. It's just not going to be available in unlimited supplies all the time.

Water will probably be the same as gas has been someday with golf agronomy. Nature just does not provide grass water whenever it wants it and needs it so grass adjusts on it's own to that. In a general sense that's called Darwinianism (Natural selection or "the survival of the fittest").

Most golf courses do not have programs that practice darwinianism in any way. Whatever ails a course's grass maintenance attempts to fix instantly. That's why I call so many of these over-irrigated, chemical dependent courses "the emergency ward".

Give grass the time to acclimate itself to "Nature's way" (water whenever it happens to occur naturally and not whenever grass wants it or needs it) and grass basically figures out how to manage it's own survival all by itself (Darwinianism, Natural selection or "Survival of the fittest").

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()