Golf Industry Show

[Don_Mahaffey]

Late last week I attended the Golf Industry Show in Las Vegas. I have been attending the “show” off and on for about 20 years. Once inside, doesn’t seem like much has changed from year to year. A few less booths, more organic products, fewer smaller guys selling novelty items, but all in all, not a whole lot different from one year to the next. The architects and builders have a much larger presence than they had in the old days of the show.  Not in terms of booth or floor space, but certainly influence. Change is inevitable, it used to be the GCSAA “show”, its most definitely an “industry” show now and while I can’t say I dislike the changes, it does feel different.
Speaking of architects, builders, and allied associations (USGA), I found some of the presentations to be interesting. (I did not attend this seminar, my thoughts based on conversations with two individuals who were there, and I would be interested to hear from anyone who did listen in who has a different take)
 In one presentation given jointly by the ASGCA, GCBAAA, and USGA, titled something along the lines of “when is it time to renovate” the speakers basically all agreed that the time to renovate your greens was when they were not behaving as you’d like. In other words, the message to the supers was, if what you’re doing is not giving you the results you want, rebuild. That is a strong message, and contradicts a bit, IMO, with the greens section consulting. What is the point of consulting if your message is to rebuild whenever you have problems?
I contrast that message with the message from Bill Coore, Mike Davis, and Bob Ferrin, about the renovation work at Pinehurst #2. Especially the comments from Bill about reduced irrigation and the fact that scallops along the edge were “OK.” I have long been a proponent of less perimeter irrigation (less irrigation in general) and it was nice to see the head of the USGA supporting that approach.
I do sense some contradiction in the USGA’s message, though. But, I applaud them for what they are doing at Pinehurst and I’m hopeful that message will resonate with the golf “industry” more than the “rebuild at the first sign of trouble” message.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

Is critiquing a presentation you haven't even heard a bit like critique of a golf course you haven't played?  Or, formulating a takeaway on second hand info?

I actually saw at least one presentation (there may have been repeats) although I admit I was talking in the back with Brad Klien, Geoff S and others more than listening.  However, I didn't come away with the message that they advocated rebuilding perhaps too quickly.  If its hard to maintain the greens, certainly one option to consider is rebuilding, but I doubt Jim Moore came across as that being the only way......and he was quite open about other methods besides the USGA being acceptable, even kidding Mike Hurdzan and me about doing so many CA greens to save money.

The most interesting part of that was that in the early days, greens construction methods were named after the archie or scientist who came up with it (The Ross method, etc) vs later on, when the place where it was devised tended to set the name, like USGA, California, etc.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
I highly respect the two guys who told me, independently I might add, about the presentation and the message they came away with. Could they have heard wrong? Sure. Could I have heard them wrong? I guess. Nevertheless, that was the message they got. It is why I asked for comments from others who were there, and made it clear I didn't hear it with my own ears.

It that disqualifies me from saying anything, then your disqualified as well since you said you weren't listening

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

LOL and you are right.  I am sure they heard right, but they listened with a cynical ear perhaps, while I listened with a bored one, having heard these things before.  As you say, not a lot changes from year to year at the show.

The most interesting conversation I heard was with some GCSAA mucky muck types who said that the Vegas convention center told them they weren't welcome back - simply too small to bother booking the convention space with so many bigger fish to fry.

[Ben Sims]

Jeff,

It wasn't Jim Moore.  And as someone that knows as little about the business as I do, listening with a cynical ear is tough when I don't know what is going on half the time.  But it was interesting to see a member of the ASGCA, a member of the USGA greens section, two members of the GCBAA and a GCSAA member all directly state that they agreed that "when a green isn't performing at the level you want it to, then it's time to rebuild."

Another odd thing was, in my experience--save for four or five guys--most couldn't have cared less about an excited newbie that wanted to talk about golf courses.  I'll make sure to remember that feeling.  Glad we don't act that way when we display our jets at airshows, we wouldn't have anyone volunteering to fly!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

I think it was presented a few times at the "solution center" near the ASGCA and GCBAA booths.  When I saw it, it was Jim Moore and Tom Marzolf, along with a builder and another I didn't know.  I am sure the message was about the same.

However, you cannot deny that at some point, rebuilding is probably necessary in many cases.  I just took it as information to help others make an informed decision, not a directive to go tear things up now.

Doesn't surprise me that no one cared about the newb, though!

[Mike Nuzzo]

If the greens were constructed properly with drainage and well designed when would rebuilding be necessary?
Cheers

[Ian Larson]

If the greens were constructed properly with drainage and well designed when would rebuilding be necessary?
Cheers

The most perfectly draining greens with well built drainage and excellently designed surface drainage contours can very well need to rebuilt at some point.

When you start combining variables like ph, water, minerals and chemicals you can end up with a perfect storm for disaster if you're not careful with the greens maintenance.

A greens performance is only as good as its most limiting factor at whatever depth into the greens profile that is. I've worked on USGA greens that had developed a solid layer of precipitated iron in the lowest 2" of the profile directly above perfectly good drain lines and below perfectly clean greens mix. The greens performed poorly because of that layer. They were only as good as that layer and it had nothing to do with being a USGA green. It can happen to any type of construction. Fairly young greens needed rebuilt and the variables causing the chemical reaction with the precipitated iron needed rectified. Otherwise drainage would suck no matter what, anaerobic conditions would prevail causing black layer and by extension choking out turf.

I've been to quite a few renovation seminars with these same outfits, and to continue the rhetoric, conjecture and 3rd degree speculation, not this specific one. I've also known Jim Moore from these seminars and have had him at my club as a USGA Green Section consult. I will go on the record for Jim and the USGA that on the field they will do everything they possibly can to solve a problem with greens before they would EVER suggest rebuilding or "renovating".

And by the way the "so called" tile was "when is it time to renovate"? -ish. "Renovate" doesn't necessarily mean rebuild. There are numerous options and variations of renovations that can be done to greens if "they are not performing".

This thread is useless until we actually have someone chime in that was paying attention and taking notes. Until then it's just rhetoric and conjecture. And the implications that are being made are not the experience I've ever had with these guys.

[DMoriarty]

If the greens were constructed properly with drainage and well designed when would rebuilding be necessary?
Cheers

Probably around the same time the economy got rough, no new courses were being built, and the ASGCA guys started trying to figure out how to stay afloat during the downturn.

__________________________________


Ian, 

It sounds like Ben Sims was paying attention.

[Ian Larson]

If the greens were constructed properly with drainage and well designed when would rebuilding be necessary?
Cheers

Probably around the same time the economy got rough, no new courses were being built, and the ASGCA guys started trying to figure out how to stay afloat during the downturn.

__________________________________


Ian, 

It sounds like Ben Sims was paying attention.

I'd like to have an experienced  professional in the industry contribute to the discussion. There's such a thing as context and  "when a green isn't performing at the level you want it to, then it's time to rebuild." is a broad statement that when it's the only tidbit included on this discussion or through the rumor mill, can be taken out of context. I've experienced poorly performing greens and have worked with the guys being cited with this. They don't just jump to the conclusion that you need to completely rebuild and that's a fact.

Taking a part of a sentence from an entire seminar and doing this is something FOX NEWS does. Not industry professionals. And Ben Sims is hardly in the industry.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ian,

You have it right.  While I agree with Mike in theory and have seen many older USGA greens that are still perfect, at least below a thatch layer, many just don't hold up.  Now, sand shouldn't change in composition, but in some cases, the selected sand wasn't the right type anyway.  Of course, the cynics also ask how it could be when the USGA changes its sand recommendations every so ofen based on new research.....

I suspect water quality will tend to lead to quicker greens rebuilding in the future vs the past.  Real issue.  In essence, we are building up contaminated soil.  And, I agree with you that no one at ASGCA or USGA advocates for willy nilly rebuilding just because.  

Certainly not the USGA which is a non profit.  All adovcate figuring out what the problem is, and then fixing it appropriately.  To do otherwise might pick up one job for an architect, at the expense of the credibility down the road that costs them far more.  For anyone to jump to a second hand conclusion that all in the golf biz are conspiring to get clubs to spend unnecessary funds is ridiculous.  It would be even more ridiculous to think that any reasonably sane club would spend unnecessarily to renovate just because the USGA told them to!  Most get second and third opinions before going under the knife.

It was an educational seminar for what does happen out in nature and on golf courses, nothing more, nothing less.  Of course, this is the internet, so thetrolls can come out and diss everyone in the biz with no real foundation without fear of recourse.  Such is the modern world.  I am sure each one of you thinks you are a bigger expert than Jim Moore in agronomic issues, even from 1000 miles away!

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, I will say that Tom Marzolf, on behalf of ASGCA and the USGA did produce a "expected life cycle" chart of golf course components.  I can see where cynics would say its a shill for needless remodel, and I am also surprised at how many in the biz latched on to this as a bible to tell folks when to expect to remodel, with the emphasis often on, "now."

That said, most golf course components DO seem to last what the chart says, which is about 15-20 years, although there is a difference.  For example, a well designed irrigation system, with flow velocity under 4 FPS rather than the more typical of the 1980's 6 FPS will probably last 25-30 years, which I have confirmed with my own observations.   For a while, we all built paths with fiber mesh rather than steel mesh or steel bars, and those are falling apart, whereas something stronger probably would have stayed.  I always spec 6 sack concrete, but most paths are 5 sack, when a chart would show really increased strength right at 6 sack, with taling off bennies for going 7 sack, etc..

In other words, saving money up front costs more in the long run and you get what you pay for, but golf has always been a tough biz, and  the tendency to poor boy it has always  been there.

Lots of the components that wear out on a golf course were from those poor boy decisions.  Greens are an example, too.  USGA research has show that California greens tend to wear out a bit faster.  The gravel layer keeps the soil from interfacing with the sand, and evens out drainage, both of which can shorten life spans.  So many courses are built with cheaper sand which might not have the characteristics really needed.

Bunkers built the standard way don't seem to last five years any more.  Tiles clog, fines migrate to the top, etc. etc. etc.  Liners help, but I am currently assisting my second rebuild of bunkers on a course since they were built in just 2003.

Short version - nearly all golf courses do need renovations at some point.  Maybe not every component, maybe not the greens, although they are important enough to warrant the best attention.  Acknowledging that reality in an educational seminar doesn't make someone a villain.  It does happen.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Geez Ian, you've been on fire lately.
I made it clear I didn't hear it personally but I can assure you one person who even you would acknowledge as an industry professional passed it on to me that the statements by the presenters made him very uncomfortable. I've seen his name here before so maybe he will chime in. I don't think there is some big conspiracy at work here, but I do think it interesting that they choose a builder to lead a presentation about when to renovate.  And I don't get why it makes me a cynic to talk about it? I doubt Jim Moore would get all worked up if I wanted clarification about the message.   My personal belief is a properly constructed and maintained green should last a lifetime. I am not in agreement with some of the timelines the "industry" sets. I don't think that makes me a cynic.
As for Ben, he's an academy grad and an officer with an outstanding service record. I know him to be a good listener and clear thinker. He's not out to get anyone and brings few biases to this DG. Your dismissal of his comments says a lot more about you then him.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

There is nothing wrong with being a cynic.  Everyone needs their own personal cynic to keep them grounded........

I agree Jim Moore wouldn't get worked up over a clarification.  I agree because I think if someone asked if they are pushing unnecessary renovations, he would say "Lordy, no."  He would be embarrassed to have spoken words or in a tone to convey such a thing.

That said, I do agree that in theory a USGA green should last forever.  Only problem is that it doesn't.  I hate it when reality intersects with some good lab theory!  Sand composition doesn't change, and that was the whole theory.  But chemical comps can change, thatch becomes an issue and the sad fact is that with turf migration and contamination, most clubs want or need to at least re-grass their greens every 10-15 years or so.  At that time, they have the choice of just slit planting back, removing the 3-4" of thatch and adding some sand, or coring out completely and adding new sand. 

Personally, I have done all three with variations of each, and I bet anyone in the biz would say the same.

[Marty Bonnar]

Did anybody meet the Scottish guys from Fife on the John Deere stand??
 
F.

[Ian Larson]

Don
What exactly did you want to get out of starting a thread about a seminar you did not attend with the implications you are making? More fearmongering and paranoia about the USGA, ASGCA and GCBAA? That is all its doing and it's doing it on a public forum for club members, committee members, greens chairman and GM's to read. I don't think it matters who you heard it from. What does matter is that you only heard it and the only guy who was there was Ben Sims who took a basic online turf course and blogs? I'm working on my private pilots license but would I go on an aviation site and act like what I'm talking about? No way. And we all know he's your Wolf Point buddy and as you are one of the most biased contributors on here I highly doubt it doesn't rub off on him and he's one of the guys you heard this from.

If Golf Course Architects, Golf Course Builders and USGA Consultants can't talk about when the best time to renovate is, then who can? Only Superintendents? Some guy that may have supe'd at a couple clubs and maybe was involved in one greens renovation? Or the guys who's job it is to travel and have seen hundreds of different scenarios and problems and work to solve them?
Jim Moore who's been all over the country hundreds of times seeing anything and everything or Don Mahaffy who thinks making blanket statements like any green should last a lifetime and never need renovated? And that's my issue with the thread, it's you're opinion any green should never need renovated and these organizations are talking about when to renovate. Like they immediately jump directly to rebuild and they do that because they profit from it. A fox in the henhouse seminar. And I take issue with your implication because it's wrong and it's wrong to make an implication on a seminar you didn't even attend on a public forum.

My first hand experience with what you are implying is exactly the opposite with these organizations. And until we get someone other than Ben who is as qualified as any club member, green chairman or GM to chime in and discuss what the guys discussed with "green performance" this thread is not very good.

[Ben Sims]

Ian,

Nice hyperbole to suit your argument, eh?  I wouldn't call the fifth semester of a masters program "basic", but it helped you hammer home some vitriol.  Nice work.  As an unrelated aside, there's plenty of established golf industry folks with GPA's lower than my own.  So I can't be all that uninformed!

In this case, I was merely challenging industry status quo.  And I don't see a whole lot wrong with that.  I agree with Jeff that no one is overtly conspiring to get a club/course to spend money they don't have.  But like equipment technology is doing with architecture, advances in maintenance/construction quality (i.e. cost) are doing to club/course's wallets.  Golf isn't in bad shape financially because of one specific thing.  And that is why it is EVERYONE's duty to try and control cost to preserve and strengthen the game we love.  I didn't see a lot of that at the GIS.  I saw a lot of really expensive lightweight mowers, floratine foam, and subsoil irrigation systems. 

Furthermore, the quote didn't come from the USGA guy or even Jon Fought, ASGCA (though they agreed with it).  In fact, Mr. Fought and the USGA gentleman (I forget his name) were two of the more even keeled members of the panel and talked about restraint.  No, the quote came from one of the largest golf construction firms in the nation.  How is there no bias in his statement and in his position?  It's an industry show primarily built around turf professionals from around the country and one of the largest firms is telling these guys that they need to rebuild if the greens aren't agronomically performing? 

[Mike_Young]

I was not at the show.  So I did not attend the specific seminar mentioned here.  But all of this relates back to how the game is being influenced by the business.
Real quick,  we had about 3800 courses in 1929 I think.  We had about 1000 less in 1939 and only 600 were built again by 1950.  By 1975 we had about 7000.  And in 2010 we had 16500.  ( I might be off here and their but I think am close)
The  majority of the courses built in the last 25-30 years were not built for the game of golf.  They were built to sell real estate or resort stays.   This allowed an industry to become much larger than it needed to be.  And many considered it the norm but we now know it never was. 
So here we are today at the GCSAA convention which is now called the GIS show.  And today we have two basic types of golf customers coming to the show.  I break them into two categories:  1.  Member run clubs and RE developments where the staff says here is the budget for the conditions you requested and the membership  either raises the dues, assesses the membership for the improvements or upgrades.  These types of clubs allow the consultants, vendors and misc factions to dictate to them what is needed.  This is where cost have gotten completely out of control.
2.  The individual owner run clubs where they have to make a profit to survive.  These guys might come to the conference and will listen but they have a totally different agenda than the first group.  AND they are going to call  “BULLSHIT” much quicker than the first group. 
Most all of us in the business fit into one of those two groups.  But most forget that golf has a very large silent majority and they see thru a lot.

 I personally don’t care what was said at the seminar in question.  If I was on a panel it would be mainly to attract more business and there is ZERO wrong with that. 

But think about this.
THE INDUSTRY has about 22000 members of the GCSAA.  30,000 members of the PGA.  I don’t know how many CMAA members are out there but it is interesting that there are only about 128 GCBAA builders, about 175 ASGCA members.  (less than 1% of the industry)
Out of the builders and archies in these groups probably less than half (if that many) have enough work to practice.    So you can bet there is much more salesmanship going on now than at anytime in the last 25 years.  And whatever was said at the seminar was just one way to skin the cat   the next few years will have plenty of seminars and conferences where people will be calling BS.  But no matter what is said if it has to be paid for by someone and many of the clubs that have been allowing all of the these over the top expenditures are going the way of the dinosaur.   

[Don_Mahaffey]

Don
What exactly did you want to get out of starting a thread about a seminar you did not attend with the implications you are making? More fearmongering and paranoia about the USGA, ASGCA and GCBAA? That is all its doing and it's doing it on a public forum for club members, committee members, greens chairman and GM's to read. I don't think it matters who you heard it from. What does matter is that you only heard it and the only guy who was there was Ben Sims who took a basic online turf course and blogs? I'm working on my private pilots license but would I go on an aviation site and act like what I'm talking about? No way. And we all know he's your Wolf Point buddy and as you are one of the most biased contributors on here I highly doubt it doesn't rub off on him and he's one of the guys you heard this from.

If Golf Course Architects, Golf Course Builders and USGA Consultants can't talk about when the best time to renovate is, then who can? Only Superintendents? Some guy that may have supe'd at a couple clubs and maybe was involved in one greens renovation? Or the guys who's job it is to travel and have seen hundreds of different scenarios and problems and work to solve them?
Jim Moore who's been all over the country hundreds of times seeing anything and everything or Don Mahaffy who thinks making blanket statements like any green should last a lifetime and never need renovated? And that's my issue with the thread, it's you're opinion any green should never need renovated and these organizations are talking about when to renovate. Like they immediately jump directly to rebuild and they do that because they profit from it. A fox in the henhouse seminar. And I take issue with your implication because it's wrong and it's wrong to make an implication on a seminar you didn't even attend on a public forum.

My first hand experience with what you are implying is exactly the opposite with these organizations. And until we get someone other than Ben who is as qualified as any club member, green chairman or GM to chime in and discuss what the guys discussed with "green performance" this thread is not very good.

Ian,
Fearmongering? Paranoia? What the hell are you talking about?
Any green should last a lifetime? No read it again, a properly constructed and maintained green should last a lifetime is what I wrote, what I believe, and feel free to disagree but how about saving all the bull crap. I wrote what I wrote because I was curious if anyone else had been at the presentation and heard different. Instead I get you, who wasn't there but is sure what was said.

If you think some unnecessary work is not being done, you're very naive.  I'm finishing a project this week where it was recommended the greens be rebuilt. Recommended by an accredited lab, by a management company, and by several architects. Guess what, the drainage didn't work and we spent less than 10% of the money budgeted for the renovation fixing the drainage and adding smile drains that were on the original plan but never installed. The greens are now very good and the client and customers are happy. I commend the client for having the courage to go against the grain and actually learn what the problem was vs going with the lab report that said too much thatch required a rebuild, and against the management company that didn't want to deal with the thatch build up that had occurred on their watch.  The only thing wrong with the physicals was a bit too much thatch and I knew the greens weren't going into total failure during wet rainy periods simply because the thatch number was a tick too high.

Everyone involved thought they were doing the right thing, but work makes the world go around and its just too easy to come to an early conclusion without really getting to the bottom of the issue at hand.

I have written the USGA and asked for a clarification on their stance. Whether they made the comment or the comment was made by the builder, I would expect the USGA to have a "checklist" for a course to go thru before undergoing a total green rebuild. I acknowledge they may very well already have and use a process like that. But I'm trying to learn exactly where they stand.

[Bill_McBride]

Don,

LOL and you are right.  I am sure they heard right, but they listened with a cynical ear perhaps, while I listened with a bored one, having heard these things before.  As you say, not a lot changes from year to year at the show.

The most interesting conversation I heard was with some GCSAA mucky muck types who said that the Vegas convention center told them they weren't welcome back - simply too small to bother booking the convention space with so many bigger fish to fry.

Reading between the lines, those guys are not "serious players" on the tables!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
While you're waiting you can read Mr. Moore's essay: "Determining the Need for Reconstruction"

http://www.usga.org/course_care/articles/construction/greens/Determining-the-Need-for-Reconstruction/

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jim,
Thank you for the link. I liked what Mr. Moore wrote, and it is very similar to what we did with the client I mention above.

[Ian Larson]

Mike,
Well said I like that.



Ben,
Your comment about your great GPA compared to the dumber experienced paid professionals GPA is just weird and once you start getting a paycheck for work in the field you might start to learn that GPA and thesis' really do not mean squat nor do they make you any more informed.
It's not to spark vitriol it's just that you still have yet to provide us details of the agronomic aspects of the seminar and why they were saying what they were saying. It doesn't take a masters program education to hear somebody say that "greens aren't performing as well as you want so you need a complete rebuild." and not question the statement without hearing the specific details as to why.

I gave a real life hands on field scenario above of a case where a rebuild should be considered. Are you going to say a rebuild was completely unnecessary? What agronomic experience could you bring to that situation in regards to the chemistry and soil science aspect of it? From what I've read of your agronomic posts it does come off as your knowledge being basic whether or not you're physically attending classes for turf at a university or taking online classes that are done on top of your academy schooling for the air force. I thought it was all online but if I'm wrong I apologize.

There is a lot open to interpretation as to what is "performance" and "renovation". You haven't expanded on that yet and Don wasn't there so he can't. But because I know Jim I can tell you it probably came down to drainage and the million variables that can affect it and cause it to deteriorate. Those guys are good at what they do and aren't in the business of ripping off golf course owners nor are they in the business of increasing maintenance costs to the point it's unreasonable and it fails. That does them no good, they need golf courses to be financially viable to give them business.

You may be addressing the status quo of the industry but in my opinion the status quo on this public forum can be just as dangerous to the industry. The status quo on here is anti-USGA, anti-association and anti-technology. It's just as extreme on here to the right as is the industries extreme to the left. Neither is good for the game as there could be a struggling super out there who can't bring in his USGA guy for a visit because his greens chairman reads threads like this. You never know.

Is the guy from one of the biggest firms Bill Kubly? Bill will forget more things about the business than you will learn. He knows what he's talking about when it comes to agronomics and construction. He understands soils and how important drainage is to a greens health. He's probably seen some of the worst performing greens ever. Why does that make him a bad guy or biased and unable to speak on it. He's an expert and that's why he was on the panel. Those guys were all chosen to share their expertise as a service to the industry and of course the Golf Club Atlas status quo feel the need to act as the self righteous saviours to the game and criminalize it.



Don,

You posted as I wrote this. Good on you for your work on that. If the thatch was the only real issue while the soil analysis was good and some smiles were needed that's a great case. I know you can't say but I'd be curious as to what lab and consultant prescribed a complete rebuild if those are the facts because if so, it was uncalled for. But I'm not going to rule out there may be some other factors to come to that decision. I'm not sure of anything that was said at the seminar. But with what is being implied is the opposite of my experience with them. And there is always an air of distrust and bias against the USGA on here and that's the direction this thread is going.

For the record I don't necessarily disagree with you that a properly constructed and maintained green can last forever. But you and I know that the panel of professionals at the seminar are not trying to get business from properly functioning greens and jacking up fees to get it done. A green needs to drain properly and if it doesn't while all other options are exhausted, it's time to renovate. What you did to your greens with simply adding smiles and addressing thatch is a renovation. Are we lumping renovation and rebuild togetherly unjustly in reference to the seminar? Because renovate doesn't just mean rebuild. It does mean improve. And you can improve a green without a rebuild. So it's hard for me to see the panel just flagrantly calling for an expensive rebuild without exhausting all other options first. Renovate and improve? Yes I can see that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
You're welcome.
It always seems to boil down to the integrity and working knowledge of the people involved, doesn't it?


 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Ian,
The reports I heard from the seminar surprised me because of the USGA involvement. I never said it was the USGA that made the comment, just that they didn't counter it, probably out of politeness to the other speaker. I don't believe I have any bias against the USGA. I may not like every championship set up, or their lack of control over equipment and the ball, but I don't think I've ever had problems with the green section. In fact, I recommended them not long ago when a friend called me from Florida asking for help.

The greens I worked on were not "my" greens. It was a project I was a part of, bid on, then made adjustments as we learned more. Some may consider fixing drainage a renovation. I don't, anymore then saying a drill and fill is renovation. To each his own, but I don't think unclogging and locating outfalls or adding a little perf comes under the heading of a renovation.

Ben is smarter then you are giving him credit for, and better yet, he's seeking many different view points which is exactly what I'd recommend a guy in his position to do. Next month he'll be spending a week at ANGC working the Masters. Last fall he spend 8 days on a construction site with us in Nebraska, and I expect we'll see him up there again later on this summer. He has every right to question what he sees and hears and IMO, we are obligated to answer him with truthful answers, not some he's forgotten more then you'll ever know gibberish. Young up and comers are supposed to challenge us, push us, make us think about what we are doing and why we do it. He went to the show on his own nickle, pays his own dues, and is a sponge for information. There is nothing wrong with his questioning what he heard. That's what a student is supposed to do.