[Don_Mahaffey]

In respect to the science of golf courses, and specifically to the architecture and maintenance of our courses, I wonder if we don’t succumb to the illusion that we can make perfectly informed decisions.

There seems to be this quest to find a scientific reason for everything we do, or should do, on our courses. We have countless educational opportunities, reams of research to read if we wish, all in the name of making informed decisions. I wonder if the dream of always having perfect information isn’t really about reducing controversy; playing it safe.

I don’t believe we have the knowledge or ability to make every decision based on perfect information.  I believe there is still a very large gap between theory and practice. While I believe it important to possess scientific knowledge, to understand the theories, I don’t think it possible to base every decision on it, or solve every problem, without creating paralysis by analysis.  I believe many of our great courses are a product of people with the self confidence to make bold decisions based on their intuition.

Like anything I guess, it comes down to talent, and I think part of that talent is having the self confidence to trust what you see, to believe in your instincts even if you don’t have all the facts.

[Clyde Johnson]

Don - Another cracking post, as always...At least you didn't your partner (Gary) to carry you on this one!

I am still trying to work out why golfer, especially, are willing to accept a scientific/standardized approach the game and our courses - you just have to look at golf's origins, and the writings/works of the 'Golden Age' architects to see the irony. Such a culture, to me, appears especially prevalent in the US - I am not sure whether this is just an inevitable result of the time, with golf realizing such a significant boom period during the 1960s and 1990s, or if it is something greater?

It is no coincidence that in most aspects of life (although the bankers perhaps prove this wrong) that it it is those who are willing to take risks - especially in the design/engineering/inventing fields - that are the great influencers/revolutionizers. Given this, it is surprising to me that only a few are willing to step out there and try something new, or as you said trust their instincts. I often wonder if this is a product of the golf industry - unnecessarily high expectations and costs (etc.) - or, if the majority of those responsible simply don't care enough? Maybe it is a talent thing...

[Sean_A]

So much of golf is seemingly set in stone (albeit not a hard stone) which needn't be the case at all.  For instance, par 72/36, 18/9 holes, 18/9 greens, minimum overall length and loads of tees focused merely on yardage - and this is before we ever come to the "rules" of designing the hoels.  I think to some degree its a great pity that archies are not in control of their field.  I suspect if they were we would see a better variety and quality of modern designs. 

Ciao

[Philippe Binette]

There is two things here, science and standards.

Most of the time, the society (in general) follows the standards because they don't want, take time or have time to properly understand the science.

You can make a list of all the "unmaintainable" element of a golf course, according to the standard... then go on the great courses and you'll find stuff a lot more severe than according to the standards.

Here's a quick example of standard: for years, almost every project in landscape architecture has put 6 inches of (regulated) topsoil when sodding new grass. That's blindly following a standard.

If you work with the science, you should analyze the existing soil structure, consider using amendments, and maybe 2 inches would be fine, follwoed with a good aeration / topdressing the next year... it might save you money too...

but, we follow the standards instead... because it's safe or because we are disconnect from the realities of a site.

[R Yonce]

Probably in any profession, there are those who go 100% by the book, and then there are those who take what they’ve found important from the book and apply it to real world situations.

There was a thread a few days back about what the current definition and understanding of what a “creative” person is. Someone stated that the more modern characterization of a “creative” person goes well beyond of what a musician, artist, etc., does, and should include anyone who is able to evaluate the factors that lie ahead of them, and based on their instincts, have the intuition to make a potentially “untraditional” decision to solve a unique problem.

It’s no surprise that turf professionals are constantly bombarded with the latest products (chemical, equipment, etc) that have been “scientifically” proven to cure all of your turfgrass problems. And in this case, it is certainly useful to understand basic scientific knowledge in order to look past the gimmicks and understand what is really needed.

Growing grass is much harder than it appears to be. It goes well beyond the concrete scientific knowledge and requires creativity based on a wealth of confidence and experience. So, while designers and turf professionals may always be required to use certain basic principles and scientific knowledge as foundations that they build upon in their own endeavors, no solution will most likely ever be the same, thus the approaches to solving particular problems have to be unique in their own. You can’t break the mold by going by the mold, and growing grass a certain way for a particular design may seem like the designer is asking for less, but in fact, he is asking for the superintendent to be just as creative as he is.   

[Mike_Young]

Don,
The last 25 years have been an incubator of sorts for expensive , technologically advanced maintenance practices.  Top of the entire industry has had one thing in common when it comes to embracing such.  They either have RE executives, Resort executives or Country club boards that have to approve spending the money.   And in most cases thoses individuals don't have the knowledge to argue against such so they approve it in order to cover their butts.  I'm not saying any of these guys are bad guys for doing so, it's just the way the system works.  The 12-13 thousand courses where the owner is involved and understands the BS usually avoid it.  The most telling sign is when you talk to a supt. who is now running his own course yet used to work for a major resort. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()