[Tom_Doak]

The sooner everyone in golf, primarily architects and supers, just start doing it instead of using every "green" action as a PR opportunity, the sooner we get to actually changing the culture of golf. Stop trying to sell it and just start making courses more fun to play is not a bad way to proceed.

Don:

As my friend Tom Mead pointed out a few years ago, if a superintendent just looked to do sensible things to reduce the maintenance costs of his home course, he would generally be doing ALL THE SAME THINGS as if he was looking to make the course more sustainable environmentally.

I do worry about Pinehurst No. 2 being held up as the ultimate model.  Most courses are not built on sand and cannot convert all their roughs to dirt.

[Mike Hamilton]

I am hopeful that over the next year or two, the Golf Environmental Organization [G.E.O.], based in Scotland, will start to make real inroads here in the U.S.  Some of what they say is politically incorrect for golfers of certain political leanings ... i.e., to imply that golf courses [or man himself] can have any real impact on the environment, or that we should be more judicious in how we use water or chemicals or energy in consideration for everyone else on the planet.  But, others of us are more interested in helping them get their message out, since it would do a great service to stop misinformation by anti-growth activists which have nothing to do with the effects of golf courses on the environment.

Tom,  I'll bet you'll find that the average (or many anyway) American golfer will shy away from a golf course dubbed "environmentally friendly" rather than embrace it.  We golf to have fun....not embrace PC.  So I think the better message is that playing golf on courses with F&F conditions is in fact just more fun.  Three weeks ago I played on the Kingsmill River course which was plush, soft, and complete with 2 inch Bermuda rough.  What a a slogfest and those I played with mostly agreed.  Played a week later on a Richmond private course which was actually a bit crispy and everyone thoroughly enjoyed.  And neither group were GCA folks.  

[Jason Walker]

Tom-

Thank you for pointing that out.  I'm still trying to figure out what the message/opportunity is here.

[Adam Lawrence]

The opportunity is to use the Pinehurst example to legitimise a different approach to course maintenance, one that will save money, be more environmentally sustainable, more in tune with the history of the game and will produce golf courses that, overall, are more fun for more players. To help explain to golfers, en masse, that you don't need monostand rough cut to exactly the same height, or razor sharp bunker edging, or a course that looks pristine in every way to be regarded as one of the greatest in the world. When No. 2 starts to move up the rankings, the opportunity will arise to say, look, here is a different - and better - model. An opportunity, if you like, to counteract the idea that the Augusta syndrome is the ideal. Yes, the savings are imrtant, but to truly transform the game, we need golfers to believe that doing it this way produces better golf, not just cheaper golf.

The exact numbers for Pinehurst's maintenance bill, in some ways, aren't that important. For starters, they get their water from Lake Pinehurst. Any club that has to buy irrigation water shouldn't need too much convincing that drying the course out is a sensible thing to do, because water prices are only going one way. And Tom is right, you can't have exposed sand areas on courses that aren't sandy. But the general principle works for anyone.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
While I agree that #2 is good example of a different approach to golf course maintenance, I think that's the secondary story to the fact #2 is a much better course then it was pre restoration. The fact that it's more environmentally sensitive or more practically maintained are all stories worth telling, but they come after the fact that it just a much better course today then 5 years ago.

[Adam Clayman]

Don, I agree it should be about the golf, not the costs. Added costs for playability, is a justified expense, imo.

Adam L has likely touched on the reality of what will influence the most, a move in the rankings. It's been speculated that the drop in #2's rank, along with complaints that it just didn't play the way it did years ago, were the impetus for the recent change. I would have hoped the impetus was intelligence, as it relates to sophisticated golf course architecture and maintenance, but, that might be too much to hope for.

[Kris Shreiner]

While Pinehurst offers an excellent example of what a balanced, progressive approach can yield, the sandy-based medium and related characteristics give it natural advantages in transformation that courses with heavy soil types don't enjoy. Playing surfaces and texture options are much more limited, and a practical presentation over those denser soils, to say nothing of clay, involves significant challenges.

New course construction could certainly involve better planning to incorporate more efficient, less-costly layouts, but as fewer opportunities are expected in the near term, restoration and renovation work seem to be where most of the improved practices could be utilized. Certain design styles, particularly those of the more modern variety,  often don't look appealing when the edges are softened and frequently get knocked for being scruffy or unkempt.

Architects and owner/management folks with the vision and ability to meld what exists with what can be tweaked economically, to yield more cost-efficient, yet appealing courses, should have a bright future in what will surely be a competitive market.

Cheers,
Kris

[Mike Benham]

Mike B, could you elaborate some more please?

No pun intended but this really does need to be a grass roots campaign ... educating the local golfer.  Not the once or twice a year golfer, but the golfer who has a weekly game, the golfer who is at the course every week, knows the pro and staff and likely, has a strong opinion of what they want from a golf course.

Using a print medium, one with a narrow reach as Golfweek (paid circulation of 100,000 ) is somewhat like preaching to the choir.

So the concept of the Greenside Chat (or Bunkerside, or Roughside or Maintenance Meld Chat) is to educate the golfers while on their home course.  Get these golfers to believe, then you convert one course at a time.

There are 1,500 participants on this website, if Adam can organize 20% of these participants to host a Greenside Chat at their local public course, that would produce more results then a magazine publishing an article, 100,000 readers nodding their head in agreement but nobody doing anything to facilitate change.

Come to think of it, the current rage of "Occupy ..." might be the way to go, "Occupy your Local Muni" needs to happen.

[RJ_Daley]

I can certainly understand the situational opportunity presented by the featuring of the new Pinehurst set up and two opens in one month played on the new - oldstyle version of the course.  Yet, while Adam urges journalists, broadcast commentators, green chairmen, and us pot stirrers to call attention to what we anticipate will be a exciting and different set of tournament playing conditions that the ideal goal has been staged by C&Cs restore/remodel, it is still more than likely, fleeting and probably confined to the short term attention and memory of the contemporary time it is staged in.  If the weather and conditions are ideal during those tournaments, we may get some folks who are core golfers to sit up and take note.  But, it is the fun factor that Adam seeks to call attention to, and our fun will be limited to the vicarious process of watching those tournaments on Pinehurst II those weeks- not playing it where the fun can be experienced to give the core golfers something tangible to compare with.

I think the process of inculcating the fun factor of golf over more natural settings, f&F and mitigated by inputs to basically soften and ease the challenge is only going to come about in dribs and drabs.  There is just too much Augusta Syndrome perception ingrained in the movers and shakers culture, where private clubs and high dollar resorts are driven to present the soft and green field of play, and the field will continue to be pounded into the mold, or built up to the model of ideal signature holes fit for calendar photos to market the product.

Superintendents at private clubs on average will continue to have to respond to the unreasonable expectations of the facility directors/chairmen or whoever is in charge of the marketing or member drives.  They need to keep their jobs, and will bend rather than tell these decision makers the the reality of what can be had for more economical inputs, and that it really could lead to a new dimension in fun, if only given the chance and job security to make some ground presentation conversions.  

We can continue to spread the word, and the efforts of someone like Richard Mandrell and his affordable golf symposiums can keep sounding the drum.  Adam has made the point that it isn't just the affordable factor, but the fun factor, and stimulating the imagination of golfers to a better way to play.  But, conventional wisdom and club-resort culture and marketing is a powerful influence to overcome.

We have the rare clubs (like HVCC or the prairie courses, maybe Rustic Canyon) as examples of where F&F is either resident natural, or a goal.  I've seen this last week where Dismal is going to the extra length of the second course and a general club philosophy of promoting the 'fun factor' as a core principle of their membership make-up.  What they have is the natural meld of what is native to the area with the fun factor by  design and promotion.  But, it seems the rare "opportunity presented" is in those examples rather than the trend of a new core golfer aesthetic or playing ideal.

To some extent, the fun factor is by necessity more likely to grow and be realized at the low end budget courses, where they have no choice but to cope with dwindling resources, and happenstance realization that while lean and mean - it is a lot of fun style golf. So, I think the advantage of realizing these goals is more likely to happen at those low budget, affordable venues.

So, I'm afraid the Pinehurst opens will be a drive-by lesson, and the power of conventional club-resort marketing perspectives will continue to dominate.  Our GCA.com mantra or mission is a tall order, it seems to me.

Adam, I think they should franchise the "Believers Cup" format, and spread the word that way...  

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, that is a tremendous idea.  Perhaps a template sort of kit could be developed with material to use for such a greenside chat.  

Yet, one needs to get that process past the gate keepers of who gets to talk to memberships or facility users.  I had sent the transcript of the "affordable golf symposium" last year to my county owned facility chief.  He is superintendent and facility director, with county dept head status.  No response....  This year I sent more material and did get a meeting with our pro and him.  Tepid response....  

The resistance is great at that gate keeper level.  Anything perceived as encroachment into their 'turf' so to speak is seen as a threat at far too many venues, IMO.  We had several issues this year surrounding pace of play (a fun factor ingredient to be sure) much of which could have been solved with signage, and reasonable marshalling activity.  Yet, I got the stiff arm for trying to diplomatically present the problem and suggested, no cost solutions.  (I can share with you some written material I shared with our powers that be off line).  But, it is just a hard hurdle to overcome when perceptions are based on job security fear and marketing the built up wrong conventional wisdom of what constitutes a good course and desirable playing conditions.

But, for those venues and clubs where a presentation would be allowed, it makes great sense that we should get behind such and idea and perhaps template presentation.

[Mike_Young]

Guys,
I too like the new Pinehurst 2.  I'm still not sure it will last as it is now.  It is in the perfect place to be presented as it is but the same conditions cannot travel to other places with different conditions just because someone wants it there.  It couldn't work in Atlanta for instance because of the clay but anyway we have to see if the public really does like the look as much as those of us on this site like it.  I don't think they will.  I don't think as many enjoy Ireland and Scotland as some on here do.  I know at my club many make one trip to Scotland and come back and say they just don't get it. 
Everywhere we turn now there is the "green" and the "affordable" branding going on.  For years the "affordable" branding was frowned upon as not using the proper techniques.  And the "green" is just as TD describes above whereby just doing the common sense thing in most cases works. 
But in the end the Pinehurst marketing machine is much larger than this site and is well aware of how to promote the place.  Do you think they did what they did just because they thought they could save some sprinkler heads.  NO...marketing and promotion as much as anything.  And it's still in the experimental stage.

[Adam Clayman]

I appreciate the counter arguments. They are credible obstacles. I'd say they can be over come with education, and experience. Clay soils can produce firm and fast conditions. Not everyday, but certainly, everyday needn't be saturated turf, either. The desire isn't to do exactly what Pinehurst has done, except to say they have restored the sense of place, that is the North Carolina sandhills. Good courses should fit their environs. As a contrary i.e. The Number 4 course at Pinehurst, with it's 180 pot bunkers, was NOT fitting the North Carolina sandhills. There are no naturally occurring pot bunkers on that soil, it's too silty or clayey. Having those pot bunkers shrouded in rough, only accentuated the ridiculousness of that design concept. I'd speculate that the experiment at Pinehurst will be a success, if and when they low mow all the turf on the #4 course. Giving those pot bunkers real meaning, in a strategic sense. As it stands now, one will only find those bunkers if they fly it directly  into the bunker.

Another great example of thoughtful design was felt at Forest Creek. The south course, was fine golf, but, there was no attempt to integrate the bunker look into the landscape. The North course there, built 10 years after the south, had bunkers that blended seamlessly into the natural, on most holes. This affect, not only made the golf more enjoyable, it made it much more beautiful, imo.

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()