[Adam Clayman]

Leading up to the 2014 U.S. Open at Pinehurst, an opportunity presents itself to highlight the principles that many on this web site have espoused, since it's early days. Namely, educating the masses about the core principles of golfing in a more natural setting, on ground which encourages shot making. Opposed to golfing on a canvas that is consistent throughout, on a daily basis, which has resulted in the 'stock shot' that most pros have perfected, making most Sunday afternoons nap time, rather than golf time.

With the future of golf courses leaning towards being more sustainable, on fewer inputs, (the firm and fast mantra) a great opportunity is in front of us all, to help reverse the ills of what has become the modern sportsman's creed. Easier over a real challenge.

Afterall, why is it that when a modern U.S. sportsman visits the Links course of GB&I, has the time of their life, only to return to the Plop, Plug Fizz is, oh what a bore it is, reality on most U.S course?

Whether you are a journalist, on a green committee, or just a pot stirrer, don't let this upcoming opportunity pass without trying to educate many of those who may not even realize there's a difference.

[Mac Plumart]

What suggestion do you have Adam for not wasting this opportunity?  What should we be doing?

[Adam Clayman]

Mac, At a recent rater retreat, it was suggested that people who are very knowledgable about the realities of efficient maintenance practices could have open discussions to educate those who might need it. i.e. greens chairs etc. A sort of Restoration U., but not only for architecture geeks, but, with those who understand and appreciate, for lack of a better term,  the Maintenance Meld.

Maybe Tom Paul would be the perfect administrator?

Other than that, us golfers can only make hints, or suggestions, to someone they might be playing with, by illustrating what a huge difference the small differences make.

I was thinking Golfweek is in the perfect position to lead such a campaign, and perhaps pick up some market share in the offing. Most of the others who should be pushing the initiative, give it lip service, and have not really followed up. i.e. DG's change in the definition of what constitutes good conditioning.

Other than that the skies the limit.

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

Actually, GOLF DIGEST went much further than other magazines with a huge feature on the subject of environmentally-conscious golf course maintenance two years ago; it was way more thorough than I would ever have expected from the golf magazines.  Their change to the criteria for rating conditioning was actually tied to that article, was supposed to be a follow-up.

Unfortunately, there's been little follow-up over the past two years; and they haven't managed to educate their own panelists about what good maintenance is all about, judging from the numbers they publish.  But it's still more than the other magazines have done.

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.

Read up on what they're about:  the web site is www.golfenvironment.org

P.S.  Some of the big American golf associations are suspicious of any group that is led by Europeans and not by Americans ... but I still say that a group about golf and the environment that's BASED IN NORTH BERWICK cannot be anything but a good thing.

[JMEvensky]

P.S.  Some of the big American golf associations are suspicious of any group that is led by Europeans and not by Americans ... but I still say that a group about golf and the environment that's BASED IN NORTH BERWICK cannot be anything but a good thing.

I hope you're right,but I could, unfortunately, introduce you to people who would consider a links-type course presentation anathema.My guess is that you know more of them than I.

I think the best argument is always going to be cost savings.Enviromental concerns are irrelevant to many and "playability" is just a concept that few are willing to try and understand.

However,every club is looking to shave maintenance dollars.Cost savings is the club to beat people over the head with--the other beneficial manifestations are just icing on the cake.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, Thanx for the info. And yes, it is a shame there has been very little follow up on the GD article from 2 years ago. I do sense there are more courses understanding the need for a change to their presentations, even if they are few and far between. If you have yet to see Bill and Ben's work in Pinehurst, I suggest it. The lack of a rough cut, is positively mouth watering.

I'm more inclined to care about the playability than any environmental movement. As Sharp Park has illustrated, the truth is never an issue when it comes to zealots.

[Terry Lavin]

It will be interesting to watch that particular championship a few years hence.  To me, the most provocative issue will relate to setup.  Historically, as we all know, the USGA approach has been to utilize a course whose setup allowed them to "identify" the best player that week.  Too often, this has meant setup with high rough, 500 plus yard par-4 holes and brick hard putting surfaces that repel golf balls indiscriminately.  We have seen some evidence of a "kinder and gentler" USGA under Mike Davis' leadership, but we've also seen some very deliberate attempts to protect par, such as the setup at Pebble Beach.  When Michael Campbell won the Open at Pinehurst, it was quite unsettling to watch on television as the players contended with the brutal setup on the greens and their approaches.  If they do what they did at Pebble and what was previously done at Pinehurst in 2005, all of this noble chatter about the new look at #2 will be stuff for a bunch of sidebar articles and internet musings, but largely irrelevant to the players during the week that they are there.

[Mike Benham]

What should we be doing?

Perhaps organize and host a "Greenside Chat" at your club, and if you are private club member, do the same at a local public course ...

[Chris Buie]

Great idea Adam. You are really right about the timing. I'd say the main thing is that it would have to be presented persuasively.
You could write something filled with brilliant ideas but I'm not too sure about the value the piece if it wasn't something that was easily understood and digested by 'average golfer' and 'average green committee'.
It is a pretty radical shift we would be asking them to pursue. For instance, in the USA 'average golfer' has virtually zero enthusiasm for looking out and seeing brown fairways. That can be mainly attributed to Augusta and decades of color enhanced Masters broadcasts. That is what the great viewing public saw - and they were mesmerized by that - that is the deeply entrenched template - that's want they demand to see on their home course and the tourist courses they pony up so much of their hard earned to see. As you know, pressure was consequently brought to bear on the green committees and so all these clubs have been spending large sums of money and time making sure everything was ultra green.
When the average USA golf tourist goes to an expensive resort you can be sure they would not (at this time) respond well at all to seeing brown. The ones that make it over the pond for a journey to proper golf are generally going to be a little more appreciative of a more naturalistic approach. And a trip like that - you'd want it to be really different - otherwise why go? That's my guess as to why they are quite happy to see naturalism there but not necessarily at their home club in Peoria.
To actually persuade the average USA golf/country club to go the route of a more sensible (and better playing) route would be a very high caliber magic trick. Which is why I say it would have to be a very, very persuasive piece. The argument would not just have to make sense but have to be something that they would actually be keen to pursue.
So, it can be done. But it would be incremental. And if you truly want to shift that deeply entrenched USA template just trotting out facts won't do it. It would require a well thought out and extraordinary piece of work on a lot of different levels.
For what it's worth, that's my take.

[Mac Plumart]

Mike B...

I think you have a great idea there.

[Dan Byrnes]

Isn't part of that reason that many GB&I links courses and clubs in general that the atmosphere and traditions of those clubs provide a elicit strong feelings of enjoyment.  I like Pinehurst but its very corporate and flat.  Not as bad as some places but you leave feeling like a number.  I know my opinion isn't directly targeted at the architecture that this site focuses on but it still is relevant to why the experiences are described as different.

Not sure if its the exclusivity in the US that can make playing a wonderful architectural course not as wonderful as a course at a warm, friendly club that may not be as architecturally significant?

Apologize if I am totally missing your point but it seems to me architecture is a smaller reason why "U.S. sportsman visits the Links course of GB&I, has the time of their life, only to return to the Plop, Plug Fizz is, oh what a bore it is, reality on most U.S course?"

Dan

[Sean Leary]

Mike B...

I think you have a great idea there.

I agree.

Mike B, could you elaborate some more please?

[Ben Sims]

Adam:

Actually, GOLF DIGEST went much further than other magazines with a huge feature on the subject of environmentally-conscious golf course maintenance two years ago; it was way more thorough than I would ever have expected from the golf magazines.  Their change to the criteria for rating conditioning was actually tied to that article, was supposed to be a follow-up.

Unfortunately, there's been little follow-up over the past two years; and they haven't managed to educate their own panelists about what good maintenance is all about, judging from the numbers they publish.  But it's still more than the other magazines have done.

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.

Read up on what they're about:  the web site is www.golfenvironment.org

P.S.  Some of the big American golf associations are suspicious of any group that is led by Europeans and not by Americans ... but I still say that a group about golf and the environment that's BASED IN NORTH BERWICK cannot be anything but a good thing.

Pretty cool stuff.  They need an ex-military (not yet) officer to work an American branch?  I'm on board with these ideas.  Wonder how it could apply to using natural materials in construction?  Minimal disturbance, that kind of stuff. 

[Jim Franklin]

Adam:

Actually, GOLF DIGEST went much further than other magazines with a huge feature on the subject of environmentally-conscious golf course maintenance two years ago; it was way more thorough than I would ever have expected from the golf magazines.  Their change to the criteria for rating conditioning was actually tied to that article, was supposed to be a follow-up.

Unfortunately, there's been little follow-up over the past two years; and they haven't managed to educate their own panelists about what good maintenance is all about, judging from the numbers they publish.  But it's still more than the other magazines have done.

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.

Read up on what they're about:  the web site is www.golfenvironment.org

P.S.  Some of the big American golf associations are suspicious of any group that is led by Europeans and not by Americans ... but I still say that a group about golf and the environment that's BASED IN NORTH BERWICK cannot be anything but a good thing.

I know as a Golf Digest panelist, I get their conditioning criteria. It blows me away that others still don't get it though. My own home course doesn't get it. Our golf committee always wants everything green and soft. In time, maybe people will understand. I have a friend that just got on the panel and I am making sure he understands that brown is good.

When I played #2 earlier this year, I was blown away. It is now in my top 10.

[Adam Lawrence]

Leading up to the 2014 U.S. Open at Pinehurst, an opportunity presents itself to highlight the principles that many on this web site have espoused, since it's early days. Namely, educating the masses about the core principles of golfing in a more natural setting, on ground which encourages shot making. Opposed to golfing on a canvas that is consistent throughout, on a daily basis, which has resulted in the 'stock shot' that most pros have perfected, making most Sunday afternoons nap time, rather than golf time.

With the future of golf courses leaning towards being more sustainable, on fewer inputs, (the firm and fast mantra) a great opportunity is in front of us all, to help reverse the ills of what has become the modern sportsman's creed. Easier over a real challenge.

Afterall, why is it that when a modern U.S. sportsman visits the Links course of GB&I, has the time of their life, only to return to the Plop, Plug Fizz is, oh what a bore it is, reality on most U.S course?

Whether you are a journalist, on a green committee, or just a pot stirrer, don't let this upcoming opportunity pass without trying to educate many of those who may not even realize there's a difference.

I agree with this absolutely 100 per cent - I was entirely serious when I referred to the Pinehurst restoration as 'the most important project in golf' in the magazine earlier this year. Those of us who believe in golf courses that are fast, bouncy, natural, cheap to maintain etc now have the highest possible profile case study that we've needed for years. We can say - and we should be saying - to everyone in the golf world "THIS IS HOW TO DO IT - if a course that is going to host two US Opens in consecutive weeks can do this, so can you'. It's the chance we have all been waiting for, and we should plug it at every possible opportunity.

[Adam Clayman]

Thanx all for the considered replies.

Terry, perhaps I miss read you, but, it is my understanding that this will be a totally different set up for the Open. Not a stitch of rough. Unless you count the wire grasses that have been planted on the surrounds. This no rough scenario, exudes one core principle, namely that a ball will continue on it's path, without interference from the standard rough presentations seen all over the country (and other countries that have mistakenly followed the u.s. set ups)  This "new" presentation at The Deuce, could yield a very low score or two. I don't have a problem with that, because, the guy or guys who do take it exceptionally low, will have the day of their lives. Great courses should yield a low score to great play.

Chris, I was thinking more of a campaign, than one or two articles. Lord knows we get beat over the head with advertising and agenda driven politics all the time. What's called for is repetitive psychological warfare. That's one reason I think Golfweek is the prime candidate for this crusade (sorry couldn't help myself) Dr. Klein is somewhat of an expert on the psychological. Isn't he?

Adam, Your publication is always putting forth the proper perspective, so maybe it would be easier to turn more people onto it, than expect a mainstream publication to carry the torch? Good on ya and keep up the great writing.


Dan B. I can't speak about the lure of the experience @ GB&I clubs, my focus is on the maintenance meld and how the course accentuates the golf features, rather than cover them with rough and trees. The fun factor is the subtext here. People, even pros smile more when unpredictability is more at play. If you can't laugh off a bad bounce, how the hell are you going to make the next shot?

The irony in all of this is that, like in Baseball, sometimes it rains. The sportsman golfer needs to relish the ability to combat everything mother nature has to throw at him/her. Not, what great ideas can be thought of in committee rooms and chemical and seed companies board rooms.
 

[Chris Buie]

Yes Adam I agree with you which is why I said "It would require a well thought out and extraordinary piece of work on a lot of different levels".

'Average USA golfer' is going to need to see some compelling examples to buy into it. That is exactly what has happened with the belly putters. The sales are going way up and (I'm told) companies are scrambling to fill the orders because they've seen a lot of the tour players using it. It would (partly) be a similar thing with dormant bermuda and other more naturalistic and less expensive aspects.
You are right about the US Open at Pinehurst being the prime opportunity. It is a pity the old North-South Open is not held there in the fall every year as it used to be when it was a major. That would counter act the Augusta Syndrome more effectively than just the occasional US Open.

Perhaps the green committees could tell the membership 'hey, I know you are not really keen on this but let's give it a try for one year'. Small digestible chunks rather than forcing a huge meal on them. Or they could just do what Pinehurst boldly did - which is to just go ahead and do it without getting permission and let them adjust to the concept later.
Letting them know it will cost less is another fact that I don't think most of them would be against. There are a lot of things that could be done to promote your concept.

[JMEvensky]

Perhaps the green committees could tell the membership 'hey, I know you are not really keen on this but let's give it a try for one year'.

Frequently,the Green Committee and Chairman are the ones most resistant to fast and firm.

[Chris Buie]

Frequently,the Green Committee and Chairman are the ones most resistant to fast and firm.

Hmm, maybe that's why they call it a green committee rather than a brown committee. 

Kidding aside, I'm sure you are right JM. I've heard of some proposals coming out of those committees that you would not believe.

[JMEvensky]

Frequently,the Green Committee and Chairman are the ones most resistant to fast and firm.

Hmm, maybe that's why they call it a green committee rather than a brown committee. 

Kidding aside, I'm sure you are right JM. I've heard of some proposals coming out of those committees that you would not believe.

I can probably hang with you in the "idiotic proposal seen" category.

[Grant Saunders]

Posted by: JMEvensky 

I think the best argument is always going to be cost savings.Environmental concerns are irrelevant to many and "playability" is just a concept that few are willing to try and understand.
 

I would be interested to see some factual evidence to support this statement.

I do agree that a more sustainable approach will translate into cost savings but Im not convinced they are as substantial as some people would like to believe.

Having Pinehurst as a case study with accurately documented before and after maintenance costings would be far more significant than proposing this model based on how the course plays and looks.

For most, it is difficult to grasp the workings of agronomy and they have minimal concept of golf course maintenance. However, most can understand figures and dollar values. If they are the emphasis then you may begin to gain some traction convincing people.

Telling someone that you may save on mowing fairways once per week, for example, will not elicit the same response as breaking it down into actual costings.

Grant

[Adam Clayman]

Chris,  your thoughts remind me of the treasure trove in these annals archives on Educating memberships. So, the info is out there, it just needs to be disseminateted. John Paul Newport is essentially already educating those in a position to help alter mindsets, the most, Those who read the WSJ.

One of the biggest obstacles is the fact that most perimeter weighted clubs, make hitting those finesse fun shots, nary impossible. Most everyone of the masses I see, dont carry the proper equipment to play the game on anything but a soft canvas.

There have been times over the last decade where I sensed there were defenders of the current status quo. Presentationwise. None more so than that day after Shineythingy in '04, when one very vocal opponent to "Michaud's revenge" made such a stink, the F+F movement was set back, years.

It is amazing how it all depends on the governing body, To protect the game, and how fragile this sport is. Who knew golf club specifications would play such a huge role in defineing the skill set needed to be well rounded in our sport?


Grant, the cost savings at Pinehurst #2 will be in the long term. The short term will not prove to be less costly.  When the surrounds mature, the added expense will disappear.

[Joel_Stewart]

I've enjoyed this topic.  I think what is interesting is that just a few weeks before the US Open is the Masters and 99.8% of the people are seeing the amazing green conditions at ANGC and then you'll see Pinehurst.  Do you see the confusion?

[PCCraig]

I am really excited about the work done on #2 and hope that it springboards a few other courses and clubs into similar programs. However, do we honestly believe more than a very small percentage of Golfers outside of the 1300 participants here will even notice???

[Don_Mahaffey]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()