[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,

A course in northern Michigan could have low budgets and lower cost (or free water)  and be quite wet because they think green might trump some other lesser maintained areas, like really smooth greens.  I also suspect that as resorts, the golfers do expect green for their money more than they might at a low budget muni, if thats where they typically play.

I think some of the specific factors discussed by others would trump your very generalized arguments, esp in northern MI.

If a course has been open a few years, and is past "Best New" consideration, do you really think they spend every waking day thinking about the raters that might show up?  That hasn't been my experience.  They get comments from 100 paying customers a day and maybe 10 raters in a year, and you think they are waiting around for the rater?  Maybe, but I have never heard that as being a big factor in maintenance decisions.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe Hancock needs to reply to this thread, but he's probably off on a shaping adventure to some remote paradise.

One thing I do know, through the years I've gotten a lot more complaints about a wet golf course then a few off color areas. Golfers hate mud on their ball and I really don't think those here on GCA are the only golfers who like a dry course.

This idea that the golfers make me do it is just not true...but what is true is golfers hate the cultivation techniques we need to regularly complete to maintain a dry golf course. It takes a strong willed super with good turf management/irrigation skills AND strong communication skills to keep a course dry and in good shape. Start skipping a few fwy cultivations because they are disruptive to play and you’re on your way to a wet course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

So true.  You know what they say about water - usually too much or too little.  In truth, only for a few minutes a day would any course have "just the right amount" as EVT takes away the applied irrigation or rainfall and the soil hits optimum moisture.  Luckily, there is a range that works.

But you make a good point - managing a course to that degree does usually require more work, talent and resources than managing it just a little wet.  There really shouldn't be an excuse for too wet unless its just rained.

[Steve Kline]

John,

For the record, this situation was almost universal.   I played four other courses during my trip where there was no advance knowledge that I was coming and almost without exception, the courses played quite soft and wet.

Mike,

Do you agree with my observation that the lower the budget the firmer the course.

Not at my club. My junior dues are $200 a month. Regular dues are less than $300. We have less than 400 members. You can do the math that there isn't a huge budget. I think there are three Americans on the maintenance crew - the super and two assts. The rest are Mexicans. Another sign of low budget. Yet, the course has virtually free water due to a deal signed by the developer. So, they water the heck out of the place to keep it green because that is what the homeowners and average idiot golfer want. This is despite documents in the club's files from the USGA and architect saying that they water waaaay too much.

[Tom_Doak]

A big part of the problem is that many of these courses rarely aerify the fairways because they don't want to discourage tourist golf dollars in the fall -- so the fairways get steadily thatchier and spongy and they hold a lot more water.

[John Kavanaugh]

Steve,

I am a member of three clubs that each cost less than $800 per year for full members.  Each also has fewer than 250 members - your example of $200 a month junior dues is upscale high budget golf.  Low budget clubs do not have letters from the USGA or supers who make over $10 per hour.  I'd would guess that includes approximately 4000 clubs or 25% of the total courses in this country.  You are living high and not even knowing it.

[John Kavanaugh]

If a course has been open a few years, and is past "Best New" consideration, do you really think they spend every waking day thinking about the raters that might show up? That hasn't been my experience.  They get comments from 100 paying customers a day and maybe 10 raters in a year, and you think they are waiting around for the rater? Maybe, but I have never heard that as being a big factor in maintenance decisions.

All I am saying that when members, who supers tend to see as necessary pain in the asses, have legitimate complaints about conditioning all that can be thrown out the window when one expert comes to town and praises the course to his face, or worse, writes the obligatory note that is posted at the club.  Nothing like documented proof from a one time visitor that everything the super doing is perfect. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Joe Hancock needs to reply to this thread, but he's probably off on a shaping adventure to some remote paradise.

One thing I do know, through the years I've gotten a lot more complaints about a wet golf course then a few off color areas. Golfers hate mud on their ball and I really don't think those here on GCA are the only golfers who like a dry course.

This idea that the golfers make me do it is just not true...but what is true is golfers hate the cultivation techniques we need to regularly complete to maintain a dry golf course. It takes a strong willed super with good turf management/irrigation skills AND strong communication skills to keep a course dry and in good shape. Start skipping a few fwy cultivations because they are disruptive to play and you’re on your way to a wet course.

So, you are saying that we need more supers who are good politicians. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,

Not seeing it, but no sense arguing.

Hey, I had lunch with your Bro last week.  Nice day all around.

[Greg Chambers]

My take on the overwatering situation is quite simply this:  superintendents tend to manage their irrigation to the dry areas of the course, rather than managing said irrigation to the wet areas of the course.  Thus, the wet gets wetter, and the areas that should be dry are too wet.

[Don_Mahaffey]

So, you are saying that we need more supers who are good politicians. 

Jk,
What I'm saying is you have to be strong willed enough to do the right thing. IMO, a good super always has to have a long-term focus. You want firm fast conditions? Then you need to maintain the ground so that it can take water and keep the turf lean and thinned out. Those things, on most golfing grounds, require cultural practices that can disrupt play. Having communication skills means you can explain, and yes "sell", what needs to be done to keep the golf course in the best condition for the most amount of time. To me, that is nothing like being a politician as that means to me you spend most of your time telling people what they want to hear.

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

Thanks for making me jump in where I'd rather not......

I find it interesting that you guys are finding this over watering thing to be somewhat regional, at least what has been expressed so far. I don't have an answer for that, but interesting none the less. One anecdote concerning this, however....when I first returned to Michigan, I was struck, and subsequently disappointed by the fact that golf in Michigan seemed very recreational as opposed to what I experienced in NC. Golf in NC was still very sporty, meaning that there was often a "game" going on at the courses. Here in Michigan, there was no regular weekend games, no money games that we knew of, and most golfers were out for some other reason than to compete with others, wager or no. I bring this up because I have often wondered if the playing conditions here are based more on other factors besides playability. Is it a Michigan thing, a Midwest thing, or something else? I don't know.

Another issue I see and hear often concerns when it has been dry for a period of time. Most think that this is when you would most likely find the course firmer and faster. My experience is that the longer the drought, the higher the chance is that the super will over water because all the flaws of the irrigation coverage show up, and they try to "fix" it with longer run times, and more frequency.

I agree that education would go a long way, but there isn't anything being taught by the Universities or the USGA or any other organization that I know of that relies on the backbone of less water. We are taught to diagnose turf problems and then by the right product to fix it.

There's a lot more to this subject, but that's a start....

Joe

[John Kavanaugh]

We are taught to diagnose turf problems and then by the right product to fix it.

Joe,

And therein lies the problem of education, large budgets and turf research.  Products are not the best solution for turf problems.  Products are the quick fix for mistakes that should have never been made in the first place.  Without the safety net of money and product supers learn how to keep grass alive not through books but the old fashion way...through necessity.   Starve the super, feed the rabbit.

[Donnie Beck]

I agree the majority of courses I see are over watered.. The bottom line is it takes a lot of man hours to keep a course playing firm.  For the months of July and August we have been averaging about 120 man hours per week hand watering greens. Of which I have probably averaged close to 20 hrs per week on the end of a hose myself. Believe me it is aweful tempting to  fire up the heads in the middle of the night and let the irrgation computer do its work!

[Joe Hancock]

You raise a good question, Donnie: if Mother Nature does it's irrigation in cycles, meaning not a nightly, prescribed amount based on ET or other scientific data collection, what would be wrong with turning on those big ol' sprinklers from time to time, then letting Mother N. do her thing without too much intervention? It would have to be monitored by the superintendent of course, but is this method of any merit?

Joe

[Brad Swanson]

On a recent road trip, I played Jeff Brauer's Quarry at Giant's Ridge, Mike DeVries's Greywalls and Tom Doak's Black Forest. Now, I'm not one to rail against green. Really, I don't have anything against green grass and I don't get a kick out of playing off concrete. But these courses were like bogs. I thought the Quarry was soft when my tee shots were sucking back or plugging in the fairway, but Greywalls was as bad or worse and Black Forest has to be one of the softest courses I've ever played, even worse than the other two, which I would not have thought possible. Is this what all the GCA'ers complain about all the time, i.e., the North American golfer's demand for green? I don't get it. It is a helluva lot tougher to play from such mush than from a firm fairway. Who could possibly find this style of maintenance appealing?

This is really quite surprising as my trip up to Greywalls about a month ago found the course very dry.  The roughs were actually fairly sparse and the peaks of the undulations were all a nice tinge of brown.  Lush would've been the last word I would've used to describe the course.  The only possible explainiation is that they received a lot of rain before you arrived, because it was quite firm in early August, as these photos suggest

[Donnie Beck]

Joe,

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. My biggest concern with relying solely on sprinklers is even with the best designed systems there is going to be overlap. I have not had a system with uniform enough coverage to do away with hoses. I will typically run the heads 1 turn (3 mins) nightly to keep the poa happy and supplement additional water through the hoses 1st thing in the morning and again in the early evening to water hot spots and isolated dry spots. I have my guys changing cups cut the plugs in 2 sections to monitor soil moisture. I have them cut a 2-3" plug 1st then cut the remainer of the cup to the proper depth. It helps us keep an eye on the amount of moisture in the soils and works well for us.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Donnie,

Love your post! I do think some of the problem with wet spots is the natural expectation that now that you have a million dollar irrigation system, it should kind of take care of itself! I think hand watering will always be done by the best supers, vs. overwatering some areas just to get all areas.

I would hate to think how many sprinklers it would take to get "perfect" coverage.  And, if that were the goal, I doubt irrigation designers would be any better than gca'a and would demand the right to change their systems for five years at owners cost, like some of the big boy gca's try to do.  I mean, when a course is in dirt, its damn hard for an irrigation designer to figure where its wet and where its dry.  Many times, the grass lines aren't out there when they are staking (they should be) and of course, they come into stake and don't know if the wind is typical that day or not, etc.

[Joe Hancock]

Donnie,

Thanks for the reply. Daily monitoring is highly important.

Joe

[JSPayne]

My take on the overwatering situation is quite simply this:  superintendents tend to manage their irrigation to the dry areas of the course, rather than managing said irrigation to the wet areas of the course.  Thus, the wet gets wetter, and the areas that should be dry are too wet.

I'm glad you made this comment, as it reminded me of an extremely odd situation I once encountered (JK will have a blast with this....). I took the Irrigation Auditors certification class at the GCSAA National Conference and Trade Show in an effort to become a Certified Irrigation Auditor (really just another bullet point for the resume, as I had no intention of doing it full time, but figured every good super should know how to audit their own system). So in the class, the teachers, from the Irrigation Association, professional auditors themselves, went into great detail showing nice pictures of computerized soil moisture monitoring, among other fancy tests. However, when it came time to figure out a baseline to water to they said we should aim to water at something like the 75th percentile dry area (I need to look up the exact terminology later). Immediately, this struck me as odd.....

I thought it over a while, to try and not make a stupid question, then raised my hand and asked, "If we're supposed to water to the 75th percentile dry area, doesn't that mean that the areas surrounding that would be overwatered 25%?"

Honest to God, their response.......blank stares. Then, "This is how irrigation audits have always been done."

Further discussion with other superintendents afterwards revealed that this question was blown by because the real answer meant that that 75th driest percentile should really be watered by hand, keeping the rest of the surrounding areas in the desirable range. But the auditors aren't in the business of telling supers to handwater, their job is to make the sprinklers irrigate the whole course as uniformly and efficiently as possible, while eliminating all dry spots.

[Don_Mahaffey]

JS,
I took the same auditing class 10 years ago at the IA convention, before it was a GCSAA credit class. At the time I was trying to hone my irrigation scheduling skills (still working on that) and I was taught the same as you. In a nutshell, they teach you to measure your system and then turn it up until you cover your deficiencies. Some may say it's not that simple, but that is really what they teach. I remember saying the same as you..."if I turn it up to cover my dry spots I'll only make my wet spots worse..." I was met with blank stares as I was the only super among all the distributors and they thought I was over thinking it.

Honest to God, if you irrigate the way we are taught in school, and by the experts in continuing ed, you will over water, and by the end of the season your wet areas will be a bog. 

[Adam Clayman]

Don. That explains a lot. I'm struck by how those who think for themselves and have wonderful conditions on which to play. Think non-bog.

[jeffwarne]

One of the reasons Michigan courses may be overwatering is Detroit and much of Michigan is in an awful recession and overwatering certain areas to keep all grass alive is cheaper than selectively hand watering the areas that might otherwise be underwatered

[Sean_A]

Well, all I can say is welcome to Michigan.  Golf courses at the highest level in the state have been wetuns since I first spat the dummie.  I suspect, this is largely true for the rest of the country - no surprise.  Personally, I think much of the problem other than warped ideas about golf=green, is that the type of grasses used are not really suited to the hard life that high heat/humidity and ice/snow can throw up and that is before any possible extreme situations at the height of the growing season such as a mini drought or something should occur.  Golfers have to make a choice.  If they want bents in Michigan, it will cost a ton to keep it lean.  If they are happy to go with something else which probably won't perform as well in terms of fairway lies and fast,  true greens, then its a lot easier to keep it lean. 

In some ways, its hard to blame folks who have shutdowns in winter for wanting their courses to be in excellent shape at the height of summer - its all they really have.

Ciao

[Doug Ralston]

Sometimes green IS good. Like if you have sparse rough, and the ball can roll through a lot to unplayable woodlands and chasms, it becomes realistic to protect the golfer somewhat. We all like a challenge, but when the slightest miss or just bad luck lead to lost balls, people will give up after a while and just not come.

I hope to play Greywalls soon. If the fairways are narrow, rough is sparse, and 'dead' becomes the persistent result, I am certain I will be regretful of my desire to get to the UP. Fairways need to be reasonable to more average golfers, as does rough, or no one will feel they have options, just 'safe plays', such as they are there.

Here is a report from my friend, who played Greywalls at my behest:


"From the shores of Lake Superior

You knew the upper peninsula of Michigan was remote, but you may not know it's ROUGH.
The glaciers dug out the Great Lakes and left a real mess on some of the shoreline.
Friday we played the Greywalls Course at Marquette Golf Club.
I have renamed it "Doug's Dream" because he would certainly love it.
Before we started several of the locals ask me if I had plenty of balls ! 

Mike Devries designed the course in 2005, and he had to be on drugs.
We had to have a guide to the # 1 tee box which is on a hilltop inthe middle of the course   
Picture yourself driving to start on # 4 at Eagle Ridge and you've got the idea.
When you finish (way over yonder) you have to find your own way back!

The course has lots of rough terrain, lots of sand, and very large undulating fast greens.
I gave it 2 excellent and 16 good holes for design because there is really only one way to play most holes.
It's basicly try to avoid the bunkers, woods, and gullies.

Because we saw the course on the way out (and I am 65 years old) I moved up to 5900 yards.
That move and the concentration required to avoid catastrophe caused me to shot 84.
The wife also hit shots to the proper spots and broke 100 for the 6th time with a 98 ! 
We were both very proud of our efforts on a very tough layout.

My only complaints were the complete lack of water hazards (don't need them), and the fairway moguls.
With terrain this rough we don't need man made hills and valleys.

Doug - Put Greywalls on your wish list with Lakota Canyon in Colorado"


Moe is about a 12 handicapper. His score was quite good therefor, but his feeling of NOT having options might be revealing for those of us who cannot hit it straight as a scratch golfer, eh?

Just some thoughts. I am certain I WILL love the course.

Doug

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()