YIKES, do you see the fairway mowing patterns at Medinah ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is there anyone who thinks that TV doesn't influence golf and the maintenance of golf courses ?

How many Green Chairman, committee members and board members will start requesting that their fairways have cross or checkerboard cuts ?

Is TV responsible for refocusing the golfer's attention from the core architecture to the look of the course and maintenance ?

[Steve Burrows]

Can you provide an empirically based compelling argument that the mowing patterns at a place such as Shinnecock (up one side and back the other) do not also refocus people on the look of the course and maintenance? 

Further, what would your response be if T.V. was responsible for all courses employing maintenance tactics that meet your approval?  Would you then be celebrating the power of television, or continuing to denounce its overwhelming power?  T.V. is a tool of influence, to be sure, but people, and maintenance staff included, ultimately make the decisions that best suit them and their purposes.     

[Matt_Cohn]

Maybe it will inspire courses to mow the rough too?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you provide an empirically based compelling argument that the mowing patterns at a place such as Shinnecock (up one side and back the other) do not also refocus people on the look of the course and maintenance? 

Steve,

Sure.

How many non members will play Shinnecock today ?

How many non-members will watch the Ryder Cup today ?

Further, what would your response be if T.V. was responsible for all courses employing maintenance tactics that meet your approval? 
Well, I wouldn't have had to start this thread for one.

Would you then be celebrating the power of television, or continuing to denounce its overwhelming power?  T.V. is a tool of influence, to be sure, but people, and maintenance staff included, ultimately make the decisions that best suit them and their purposes.     

History and reality have taught us otherwise.
Maintenance staff are employees subject to the whims and dictates of those who employ them.

Certainly, you've heard of the Augusta Syndrome ......... No ?

[Terry Lavin]

The USGA mowing is much more sublime than the PGA checkerboard.

[Dan Herrmann]

Seems fitting for a Rees redesigned course

[Kyle Harris]

What sort of turf grows on Medinah's fairways?

[RJ_Daley]

I wonder if any of the regular Medinah members can tell us what the yearly or even seasonal mowing presentation and technique is, when not a TV event?

I heard that they did a lot of overseeding and such to get the course back from harsh effects of the record setting heat and humidity of this past summer.  I heard Johnny comment that the FWs are unusually loose and crumbly under FW shots, implying that delicate chips and pitches are not grabbing solid ground to provide more feel and consistency to the players.  Maybe the overseeded FWs in slit seeded soil and all the imputs they needed to get the turf up caused the loose base.  That seems perhaps to be the powers-that-be decided that the cross mowing pattern, combined with lower rough, give better definition for TV and the players, and that is their version of what is desirable presentation.

The average club member or regular player at a home course is always going to want to mimick what they see on TV.  Augusta Syndrome is alive and well.  When ANGC started the gang mow, up on one side and down on the other, it became desirable and requested by players at their home clubs who previously mimicked the cross hatched tour look.  It they left an unmowed flyer strip like Shivas brainstormed at one time, they'd request that! 

[Steve Burrows]

Can you provide an empirically based compelling argument that the mowing patterns at a place such as Shinnecock (up one side and back the other) do not also refocus people on the look of the course and maintenance? 

Steve,

Sure.

How many non members will play Shinnecock today ?

How many non-members will watch the Ryder Cup today ?

All this would prove is that some people played golf today, and others watched golf today; it would prove nothing with respect to a supposed altered focus away from the physical architecture and on to the aesthetic presentation of the golf course.  And curiously, you say that you want to be focused on the “core architecture,” but insofar as you believe that subjectively desirable mowing patterns better harmonize with the golf course itself, you are as much concerned with aesthetics as anyone.   Indeed, I suspect that it is the golf courses that best match your personal ideals of great architecture at which the focus on aesthetics increases rather than decreases.

Further, what would your response be if T.V. was responsible for all courses employing maintenance tactics that meet your approval? 
Well, I wouldn't have had to start this thread for one.

The problem with this, of course, is that you didn't HAVE to start this thread.  You WANTED to.  Moreover, it's all a double standard.  This thread is predicated on a perceived negative power of TV, yet you have all but admitted that you would very much approve of its power if it suited your own agenda and/or aesthetic preferences.

Would you then be celebrating the power of television, or continuing to denounce its overwhelming power?  T.V. is a tool of influence, to be sure, but people, and maintenance staff included, ultimately make the decisions that best suit them and their purposes.     

History and reality have taught us otherwise.
Maintenance staff are employees subject to the whims and dictates of those who employ them.

In principle, this is an accurate (though arrogant) position.  However, in my past experience in the maintenance industry (I formerly worked as an assistant superintendent at a two top-100 clubs and two lesser known clubs), I have observed differently.  In other words, the "Augusta Syndrome" is more a myth than reality.  Will your beloved NGLA be modeling their mowing patterns based on what they see this weekend in Chicago?   Probably not.  I think you generally underestimate the mental strength of your fellow man in situations like this; even those at less prominent golf courses are not as easily impressionable as you believe.  Ultimately, Superintendents work within their available resources relating to both their finances and the intellect of their labor.  I can tell you that some staff members are simply not capable of mowing the up one side and back the other pattern.  I have seen them try and fail.  They just can’t see the line, especially on mornings with little to no dew on the ground.  Have you ever personally mowed fairways in these conditions?  And neither are some staff capable of “burning” a cross-hatch, checkerboard pattern onto the ground, as we are seeing at Medinah this weekend.  Now you can argue all day that these staff should simply be better trained, or replaced entirely, but the reality is that a lot of clubs don’t have an applicant pool necessary to get supremely qualified staff.   Often, turf managers are happy that the grass is getting cut at all.

Certainly, you've heard of the Augusta Syndrome ......... No ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you provide an empirically based compelling argument that the mowing patterns at a place such as Shinnecock (up one side and back the other) do not also refocus people on the look of the course and maintenance? 

Steve,

Sure.

How many non members will play Shinnecock today ?

How many non-members will watch the Ryder Cup today ?

All this would prove is that some people played golf today, and others watched golf today; it would prove nothing with respect to a supposed altered focus away from the physical architecture and on to the aesthetic presentation of the golf course. 

Steve, it proves far more than that unless you're in denial regarding the reality of the numbers, the influence exerted on a dozen or so golfers versus the influence on millions of golfers, along with the ability to influence even more vis Avis replay, DVD and video.


And curiously, you say that you want to be focused on the “core architecture,” but insofar as you believe that subjectively desirable mowing patterns better harmonize with the golf course itself, you are as much concerned with aesthetics as anyone.   

Not at all.
The current mowing pattern is an attractive nuisance that diverts the viewers eye from the core architecture to the glitzy mowing patterns.
Those mowing patterns didn't happen by accident.
They are a deliberate attempt to catch the viewers eye by the nature of the patterns presented

Indeed, I suspect that it is the golf courses that best match your personal ideals of great architecture at which the focus on aesthetics increases rather than decreases.

It's just the opposite, the more muted the mowing patterns, the more the architecture stands out to the observer

Further, what would your response be if T.V. was responsible for all courses employing maintenance tactics that meet your approval? 
Well, I wouldn't have had to start this thread for one.

The problem with this, of course, is that you didn't HAVE to start this thread.  You WANTED to. 

Sure i did,
The bizarre and ostentatious mowing patterns offend the sensibilities

Moreover, it's all a double standard.  This thread is predicated on a perceived negative power of TV, yet you have all but admitted that you would very much approve of its power if it suited your own agenda and/or aesthetic preferences.

It's not a "perceived negative effect" it's a proven negative effect.
I certainly didn't coin the phrase "Augusta Syndrome"
As to my own agenda, would you tell me what that is ?

Would you then be celebrating the power of television, or continuing to denounce its overwhelming power?  T.V. is a tool of influence, to be sure, but people, and maintenance staff included, ultimately make the decisions that best suit them and their purposes.     

History and reality have taught us otherwise.
Maintenance staff are employees subject to the whims and dictates of those who employ them.

In principle, this is an accurate (though arrogant) position. 

It's also accurate in practice and not arrogant by any stretch of the imagination.
It's simply a hard reality

However, in my past experience in the maintenance industry (I formerly worked as an assistant superintendent at a two top-100 clubs and two lesser known clubs), I have observed differently. 

So, you're saying that you and your super could do whatever you wanted, spend whatever you wanted without oversight, direction and approval.
That you acted independently without the need for approval by your employer.  Please spare us the fantasy.



 In other words, the "Augusta Syndrome" is more a myth than reality. 

That's sheer nonsense.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post ?

Will your beloved NGLA be modeling their mowing patterns based on what they see this weekend in Chicago?   Probably not.[\color]

If you knew anything about NGLA, you'd know that it's not run like the average local clubs I referenced

I think you generally underestimate the mental strength of your fellow man in situations like this; even those at less prominent golf courses are not as easily impressionable as you believe. 

Yes they are and I have far more experience in that area than you do

Ultimately, Superintendents work within their available resources relating to both their finances and the intellect of their labor.
At the direction of their employer

I can tell you that some staff members are simply not capable of mowing the up one side and back the other pattern.  I have seen them try and fail.  They just can’t see the line, especially on mornings with little to no dew on the ground.  Have you ever personally mowed fairways in these conditions? 

Yes, but not in the morning.
And if they can't mow up and back, someone failed to train them properly

And neither are some staff capable of “burning” a cross-hatch, checkerboard pattern onto the ground, as we are seeing at Medinah this weekend.  Now you can argue all day that these staff should simply be better trained, or replaced entirely, but the reality is that a lot of clubs don’t have an applicant pool necessary to get supremely qualified staff. 

I don't know that the staff have to be "supremely" qualified as much as "adequately" qualified.
But that's not really the issue.  The issue is:  that the employer will want to replicate those patterns.
What super, when given the order to replicate those mowing patterns is going to reply, "sorry, but my staff aren't trained or qualified to mow our fairways like that ?"
Answer, NONE

Often, turf managers are happy that the grass is getting cut at all.

That's absurd.
In addition, the club would never accept minimum standards that low.

Certainly, you've heard of the Augusta Syndrome ......... No ?

[Kevin_Reilly]

The average club member or regular player at a home course is always going to want to mimick what they see on TV.  Augusta Syndrome is alive and well.  When ANGC started the gang mow, up on one side and down on the other, it became desirable and requested by players at their home clubs who previously mimicked the cross hatched tour look. 

Dick...examples of this?  This seems like one of those 'facts' that sounds like it happens, but I have no exposure to it.  In today's economic climate, maintenance budgets are being cut, and calls for fancy mowing patterns (and other special requests) would seem to be met with a polite "yes, we'll look into it" at best.

[Martin Toal]

Reminded me of one of Nick Faldo's sweaters.

[Jud_T]

The funny thing is that with the amount of play it gets, nobody would typically put Medinah #3 on a list of Top 10 best conditioned private clubs in the area. 

[Dan Herrmann]

If you look at the satellite images on maps.google.com, you'll see that this appears to be a one-time thing.  The satellite images don't show any crosshatch mowing pattern.

[Steve Burrows]

Can you provide an empirically based compelling argument that the mowing patterns at a place such as Shinnecock (up one side and back the other) do not also refocus people on the look of the course and maintenance? 

Steve,

Sure.

How many non members will play Shinnecock today ?

How many non-members will watch the Ryder Cup today ?

All this would prove is that some people played golf today, and others watched golf today; it would prove nothing with respect to a supposed altered focus away from the physical architecture and on to the aesthetic presentation of the golf course. 

Steve, it proves far more than that unless you're in denial regarding the reality of the numbers, the influence exerted on a dozen or so golfers versus the influence on millions of golfers, along with the ability to influence even more vis Avis replay, DVD and video.


So why have not more courses converted to the look that was displayed at recent US Opens at Shinnecock, Bethpage, etc.?  The truth is that and green committees and superintendents are not so easily swayed by TV as you want to lead on.

And curiously, you say that you want to be focused on the “core architecture,” but insofar as you believe that subjectively desirable mowing patterns better harmonize with the golf course itself, you are as much concerned with aesthetics as anyone.   

Not at all.
The current mowing pattern is an attractive nuisance that diverts the viewers eye from the core architecture to the glitzy mowing patterns.
Those mowing patterns didn't happen by accident.
They are a deliberate attempt to catch the viewers eye by the nature of the patterns presented.

As are ALL mowing patterns.  Moreover,  one course which hosts a PGA Tour event annually burns in fairway lines with triplex mowers PERPENDICULAR to the line of play because, according to the Superintendent, it "looks great on TV."  Have you seen other clubs follow this method?  Of course not.  It consumes far too much time and too many resources.  Yet you would have me believe that members and superintendents would be begging for a pattern that looks good on TV.

Indeed, I suspect that it is the golf courses that best match your personal ideals of great architecture at which the focus on aesthetics increases rather than decreases.

It's just the opposite, the more muted the mowing patterns, the more the architecture stands out to the observer

Further, what would your response be if T.V. was responsible for all courses employing maintenance tactics that meet your approval? 
Well, I wouldn't have had to start this thread for one.

The problem with this, of course, is that you didn't HAVE to start this thread.  You WANTED to. 

Sure i did,
The bizarre and ostentatious mowing patterns offend the sensibilities

Moreover, it's all a double standard.  This thread is predicated on a perceived negative power of TV, yet you have all but admitted that you would very much approve of its power if it suited your own agenda and/or aesthetic preferences.

It's not a "perceived negative effect" it's a proven negative effect.

May I ask what individuals or groups have "proven" anything?  You have speculated that TV has an influence, but you have certainly not produced evidence of methods by which you arrived at this result.  Until you do, it is simply a perception.

I certainly didn't coin the phrase "Augusta Syndrome"
As to my own agenda, would you tell me what that is ?

Would you then be celebrating the power of television, or continuing to denounce its overwhelming power?  T.V. is a tool of influence, to be sure, but people, and maintenance staff included, ultimately make the decisions that best suit them and their purposes.     

History and reality have taught us otherwise.
Maintenance staff are employees subject to the whims and dictates of those who employ them.

In principle, this is an accurate (though arrogant) position. 

It's also accurate in practice and not arrogant by any stretch of the imagination.
It's simply a hard reality

However, in my past experience in the maintenance industry (I formerly worked as an assistant superintendent at a two top-100 clubs and two lesser known clubs), I have observed differently. 

So, you're saying that you and your super could do whatever you wanted, spend whatever you wanted without oversight, direction and approval.
That you acted independently without the need for approval by your employer.  Please spare us the fantasy.


I have made it very clear that Superintendents work within the confines of the resources they are afforded by their membership or owner.  Moreover, I am inclined to ask the extent to which you micromanage?  Why would you hire a superintendent if he/she is not a highly educated, credentialed professional with a high level of expertise to offer your club?  Or do you just want a "Yes Man" to cut the grass?  I suspect it's the former, so I imagine that they do have some freedom to provide a service with which they are truly the expert.


 In other words, the "Augusta Syndrome" is more a myth than reality. 

That's sheer nonsense.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post ?

Will your beloved NGLA be modeling their mowing patterns based on what they see this weekend in Chicago?   Probably not.[\color]

If you knew anything about NGLA, you'd know that it's not run like the average local clubs I referenced

I think you generally underestimate the mental strength of your fellow man in situations like this; even those at less prominent golf courses are not as easily impressionable as you believe. 

Yes they are and I have far more experience in that area than you do

Ultimately, Superintendents work within their available resources relating to both their finances and the intellect of their labor.
At the direction of their employer

I can tell you that some staff members are simply not capable of mowing the up one side and back the other pattern.  I have seen them try and fail.  They just can’t see the line, especially on mornings with little to no dew on the ground.  Have you ever personally mowed fairways in these conditions? 

Yes, but not in the morning.
And if they can't mow up and back, someone failed to train them properly

And neither are some staff capable of “burning” a cross-hatch, checkerboard pattern onto the ground, as we are seeing at Medinah this weekend.  Now you can argue all day that these staff should simply be better trained, or replaced entirely, but the reality is that a lot of clubs don’t have an applicant pool necessary to get supremely qualified staff. 

I don't know that the staff have to be "supremely" qualified as much as "adequately" qualified.
But that's not really the issue.  The issue is:  that the employer will want to replicate those patterns.
What super, when given the order to replicate those mowing patterns is going to reply, "sorry, but my staff aren't trained or qualified to mow our fairways like that ?"
Answer, NONE

Often, turf managers are happy that the grass is getting cut at all.

That's absurd.
In addition, the club would never accept minimum standards that low.

Please come down from the ivory tower in which you sit.  Even at relatively nice courses, a minimum standard is all that is asked for and achieved.

Certainly, you've heard of the Augusta Syndrome ......... No ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can you provide an empirically based compelling argument that the mowing patterns at a place such as Shinnecock (up one side and back the other) do not also refocus people on the look of the course and maintenance? 

Steve,

Sure.

How many non members will play Shinnecock today ?

How many non-members will watch the Ryder Cup today ?

All this would prove is that some people played golf today, and others watched golf today; it would prove nothing with respect to a supposed altered focus away from the physical architecture and on to the aesthetic presentation of the golf course. 

Steve, it proves far more than that, unless you're in denial regarding the reality of the numbers, the influence exerted on a dozen or so golfers versus the influence on millions of golfers, along with the ability to influence even more vis Avis replay, DVD and video.


So why have not more courses converted to the look that was displayed at recent US Opens at Shinnecock, Bethpage, etc.? 

Who says that they haven't ?
I know that when I play other courses, often there's a clear replication of the current fad


The truth is that and green committees and superintendents are not so easily swayed by TV as you want to lead on.


Says you, and I have far more experience with green committees and boards than you do.
If no one is influenced, how do you account for the "Augusta Syndrome" since very few people get to play the course ?
They must have seen it on TV and been so impressed that they tried to replicate the conditions at their course.


And curiously, you say that you want to be focused on the “core architecture,” but insofar as you believe that subjectively desirable mowing patterns better harmonize with the golf course itself, you are as much concerned with aesthetics as anyone.   

Not at all.
The current mowing pattern is an attractive nuisance that diverts the viewers eye from the core architecture to the glitzy mowing patterns.
Those mowing patterns didn't happen by accident.
They are a deliberate attempt to catch the viewers eye by the nature of the patterns presented.

As are ALL mowing patterns.


Only on TV, and that PROVES my point.

When they see how it's being done on TV, there's a tendency to try to duplicate that look at the local level

The televised events deliberately create EYE CANDY for the viewer and that eye candy is what the viewers then try to emulate at their local golf courses, citing the event they watched on TV as justification and support.


Moreover,  one course which hosts a PGA Tour event annually burns in fairway lines with triplex mowers PERPENDICULAR to the line of play because, according to the Superintendent, it "looks great on TV."  Have you seen other clubs follow this method?  Of course not.  It consumes far too much time and too many resources.  Yet you would have me believe that members and superintendents would be begging for a pattern that looks good on TV.

That's a far more labor and dollar intensive departure, but the fact is that I have seen it at the local level.

Indeed, I suspect that it is the golf courses that best match your personal ideals of great architecture at which the focus on aesthetics increases rather than decreases.

It's just the opposite, the more muted the mowing patterns, the more the architecture stands out to the observer

Further, what would your response be if T.V. was responsible for all courses employing maintenance tactics that meet your approval? 
Well, I wouldn't have had to start this thread for one.

The problem with this, of course, is that you didn't HAVE to start this thread.  You WANTED to. 

Sure i did,
The bizarre and ostentatious mowing patterns offend the sensibilities

Moreover, it's all a double standard.  This thread is predicated on a perceived negative power of TV, yet you have all but admitted that you would very much approve of its power if it suited your own agenda and/or aesthetic preferences.

It's not a "perceived negative effect" it's a proven negative effect.

May I ask what individuals or groups have "proven" anything? 

It's called "ADVERTISING" on TV Steve, and companies pay millions to get their message, legitimate or not, on TV.
As to proven negative effects, a professor I had in college related how he once taught on a Pacific Island and that once a month a movie was brought in for viewing.  If that movie had a scene where a lock was picked, for the next month there was an outbreak of lock pickings.
Month after month, incidents occuring in the movie were lived out on the island, reinforcing the impressionable nature of the audience.
Again, that's why companies advertise.

Viewers are impressionable, only YOU deny the "Augusta Syndrome" and it's impact on local clubs.

Your argument reminds me of your argument that 66 yards was to far of a minimum carry for a cross bunker.

I suggest that you take up debates on topics where you have a chance of winning


You have speculated that TV has an influence, but you have certainly not produced evidence of methods by which you arrived at this result. 
Until you do, it is simply a perception.

This is perfect, I'm not speculating, the advertisers who spend millions and millions do so because they KNOW that TV has an INFLUENCE.

Add to that the universally recognized "Augusta Syndrome", which only you are in denial about, and the evidence is overwhelming.

I certainly didn't coin the phrase "Augusta Syndrome"
As to my own agenda, would you tell me what that is ?

Would you then be celebrating the power of television, or continuing to denounce its overwhelming power?  T.V. is a tool of influence, to be sure, but people, and maintenance staff included, ultimately make the decisions that best suit them and their purposes.     

History and reality have taught us otherwise.
Maintenance staff are employees subject to the whims and dictates of those who employ them.

In principle, this is an accurate (though arrogant) position. 

It's also accurate in practice and not arrogant by any stretch of the imagination.
It's simply a hard reality

However, in my past experience in the maintenance industry (I formerly worked as an assistant superintendent at a two top-100 clubs and two lesser known clubs), I have observed differently. 

So, you're saying that you and your super could do whatever you wanted, spend whatever you wanted without oversight, direction and approval.
That you acted independently without the need for approval by your employer.  Please spare us the fantasy.


I have made it very clear that Superintendents work within the confines of the resources they are afforded by their membership or owner. 

Then you acknowledge that superintendents cannot act independently of their employer, that they're governed by the instructions and funds they receive.  Are you familiar with the situation at Shinnecock in recent times ?  Evidently not.

Moreover, I am inclined to ask the extent to which you micromanage? 
It's a foolish question, but, I'll answer it.
If you expect me to abandon my oversight responsibilities that the club has entrusted to me, and give the superintendent free reign, you're in another universe.  There's a blend of direction, oversight and independence where the superintendent has to be the professional making the appropriate agronomic decisions.  The superintendent can't arbitrarily decide to do whatever he want to do, except in emergencies.
I'm far better experienced in this area than you are.

Why would you hire a superintendent if he/she is not a highly educated, credentialed professional with a high level of expertise to offer your club? 

You wouldn't, but what's that got to do with the issue ?
Hiring employees doesn't convey carte blanche discretion upon their position.
The chef doesn't decide the menu and pricing or dinning schedules.
The Pro doesn't decide when and where to hold tournaments or guest policy and the Superintendent doesn't decide to change a hole or feature without approval, or, they won't be employed at that club for long.  Again, I have far more experience in this area than you do.


Or do you just want a "Yes Man" to cut the grass?  I suspect it's the former, so I imagine that they do have some freedom to provide a service with which they are truly the expert.

You seem only capable of dealing in extremes, like cut the grass or be completely independent.

Ideally, there's a harmony, a hand in glove approach between the club's professionals and the committee chair they report to.
But, I can assure you, no superintendent has absolute authority to just do what they want to do, agronomically, maintenance wise and architecturally, and the sooner you come to that realization, the better off you'll be.


 In other words, the "Augusta Syndrome" is more a myth than reality. 

That's sheer nonsense.
Do you really believe the nonsense you post ?

Will your beloved NGLA be modeling their mowing patterns based on what they see this weekend in Chicago?   Probably not.[\color]

If you knew anything about NGLA, you'd know that it's not run like the average local clubs I referenced

I think you generally underestimate the mental strength of your fellow man in situations like this; even those at less prominent golf courses are not as easily impressionable as you believe. 

Yes they are and I have far more experience in that area than you do

Ultimately, Superintendents work within their available resources relating to both their finances and the intellect of their labor.
At the direction of their employer

I can tell you that some staff members are simply not capable of mowing the up one side and back the other pattern.  I have seen them try and fail.  They just can’t see the line, especially on mornings with little to no dew on the ground.  Have you ever personally mowed fairways in these conditions? 

Yes, but not in the morning.
And if they can't mow up and back, someone failed to train them properly

And neither are some staff capable of “burning” a cross-hatch, checkerboard pattern onto the ground, as we are seeing at Medinah this weekend.  Now you can argue all day that these staff should simply be better trained, or replaced entirely, but the reality is that a lot of clubs don’t have an applicant pool necessary to get supremely qualified staff. 

I don't know that the staff have to be "supremely" qualified as much as "adequately" qualified.
But that's not really the issue.  The issue is:  that the employer will want to replicate those patterns.
What super, when given the order to replicate those mowing patterns is going to reply, "sorry, but my staff aren't trained or qualified to mow our fairways like that ?"
Answer, NONE

Often, turf managers are happy that the grass is getting cut at all.

That's absurd.
In addition, the club would never accept minimum standards that low.

Please come down from the ivory tower in which you sit. 

I can assure you that my 50 years of experience is well grounded. 
I think you're the one in dreamland

Even at relatively nice courses, a minimum standard is all that is asked for and achieved.

Not in the greater New York area !

Certainly, you've heard of the Augusta Syndrome ......... No ?[/b][/size]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

In the ultimate, it's a question of inherent architectural values versus eye candy.

You seem to think that the eye candy presented by TV has no negative impact on the viewer being able to discern the architectural values despite the intended visual distraction presented by the eye candy..

[Neil_Crafter]

Played NGLA yesterday where there is no discernible mowing pattern at all. This is the best look of all to my eye. I dislike the cross hatch and really dislike the up and back look :-(
NGLA is an amazing course and felt very privileged to have played it.

[Bill Brightly]

My personal observation is that the "up and back" cut was fairly rare up until about 5 years ago. At least I had not seen it much. When Ridgewood got the Barclay's, the PGA asked Ridgewood to do it so that the machines do not have to turn in the rough like they do with cross hatch cutting. So I believe that the up and back technique is primarily employed to help keep the roughs more plush. It seems to me that more and more clubs are switching to this method.

Perhaps the US team felt easier rough would be to their advantage given the length and wildness of their team from the tee?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

Mowing patterns tend to be fads and most of the fads in golf maintenance are a direct result of TV viewing.

Neil,

NGLA is incredibly special, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Bill does an incredible job at trying to present the course at it's best and when it's at it's best, there's nothing like it.

[Bill Brightly]

I'd say that up and back cut it is more than a fad. If it helps the rough, and saves time (with less time wasted turning) then there may be sound economic reasons for the growth of this technique.

I think the cross hatch cut looks prettier, but the up and back cut seems to provide a more classic look. (It does take some getting used to.) I think it will beconme the norm at top tier courses in the US.

[JR Potts]

Is there anyone who thinks that TV doesn't influence golf and the maintenance of golf courses ?

How many Green Chairman, committee members and board members will start requesting that their fairways have cross or checkerboard cuts ?

Is TV responsible for refocusing the golfer's attention from the core architecture to the look of the course and maintenance ?

I think people should be smart enough to decipher or educated appropriately as to difference between maintenance practices during an event like the Ryder Cup and every day play.  The mowing patters at Medinah last week were done at the request of the PGA.  Medinah does not routinely have checkerboard cuts.

While I am sure that a handful of members will start complaining tomorrow when the course opens that the condition is not what they would hope, those members will always complain about something.  The lowest common denominator cannot continually be pandered to.  If they can't tell the difference between a set up for a one a lifetime one week event and "real life", then there is no hope for them anyways.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd say that up and back cut it is more than a fad. If it helps the rough, and saves time (with less time wasted turning) then there may be sound economic reasons for the growth of this technique.

Bill, in the 60's and 70's the up and down cut was the only way that gang mowers mowed fairways.

Clubs went away from that pattern and are only now returning to it.

Whether it remains as the preferred method will determine if it is a return fad or here to stay

I think the cross hatch cut looks prettier, but the up and back cut seems to provide a more classic look. (It does take some getting used to.) I think it will beconme the norm at top tier courses in the US.

For how long ?[/color]

[Jud_T]

JR,

Congrats on a great event.  After that showing I wouldn't bet the house that it's a once in a lifetime experience for the club.

[Michael Moore]

Pat -

The up-and-down mowing pattern can also confuse the golfer and turn his attention away from certain architectural features.