[Anthony_Nysse]

Mike,
  I commented on this several posts ago that if the turf was allowed to be maintained at a higher height, this would be a different, but 99% of golfers, especially at Oakmont, demand faster greens. Their greens have always been among the fastest in the country.

Anthony,

This is the circle jerk that John was referring to. By saying 99%, when you have no real data to support that data, you minimize the membership.

Over on the Black Mesa thread, this was posted.

Two interesting videos from Pat Brockwell, the super at Black Mesa, regarding the conditioning issues, particularly grubs. He is optimistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYOEb3cBEO0&list=UUS-NJYb4Ln2BjMRYsMy33cw&index=2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiicLCwzsOE&list=UUS-NJYb4Ln2BjMRYsMy33cw&index=1

Now it would have been very easy to look at that thread and say, "I'll pass on Black Mesa for now." Thankfully, Pat Brockwell took the time to educate his golfers. It is not a simple process to film and then upload to YouTube (boo YouTube ). Thankfully, Stewart posted those videos. I took the time to watch them, and if Black Mesa was in my neighborhood, I would make a special trip to play the course right now, because Pat took the time to educate his golfers what the issues are.

Same with Scott Ramsey at Yale, he send out some very detailed emails about the positives and negatives on Yale conditioning as he goes through the season. He had a tough summer but things bounced back in the fall, and we were all aware of the issues.

Obviously it is not 100%, but some members will read an email or Blog from the greens staff, and then they speak to other members. It is an education process and it takes time, but YOU have to be willing to take the time.

The concept that golfers and members are stupid or ignorant is not correct. People are busy and they have other priorities. Educating those people with take an enormous amount of time and energy, but a Blog  or email cost almost nothing to produce.

I would like to think Pat Brockwell is an example of what to do rather than what not to do. Mistakes happen when growing grass, education is the cure.

Mike,
  Jaka just mentioned how 100% of golfers would like to play Oakmont as Johnny Miller did in 1973 WITHOUT any real data to support, so your comment has no ground.
  Also, many individuals have tried to educate Jaka over the years and he doesn't want to listen or be informed. Even as I type this, I'm trying to educate, but its not going anywhere.
  We have a great membership at Pine Tree that gets weekly emails about what they are seeing on the golf course or can expect. They WANT to be informed, especially when so many are up north in the summer months and projects are taking place down here. You have to be open to information and want to learn. Jaka had his mind made up about numerous agronomic programs years ago.

[John Kavanaugh]

100% of all golfers would love to play Oakmont exactly how Johnny Miller found her set up for the 73 Open. No fans needed then.

This one wouldn't, so that's not 100%. Did you want to answer my question about Oakmont/Tree Removal and fans? Seems throw your theory out the window, but you're skirting around it.

Quickly, I don't understand your question considering you told me in another post on this thread that a course I complimented for not having fans wasn't relevant because it is located in Philly.  I don't know the facts but I believe that Oakmont falls into my die, fan, tree removal theory.  Once the fans are installed they are not coming out because there is no proof on exactly why the greens aren't dying.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old.  It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf.  If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer.  My 100% stands.

[Mike Sweeney]

  Jaka just mentioned how 100% of golfers would like to play Oakmont as Johnny Miller did in 1973 WITHOUT any real data to support, so your comment has no ground.
  Also, many individuals have tried to educate Jaka over the years and he doesn't want to listen or be informed. Even as I type this, I'm trying to educate, but its not going anywhere.
  We have a great membership at Pine Tree that gets weekly emails about what they are seeing on the golf course or can expect. They WANT to be informed, especially when so many are up north in the summer months and projects are taking place down here. You have to be open to information and want to learn. Jaka had his mind made up about numerous agronomic programs years ago.

I don't give a sxxt about Jaka. We both can agree that he is a pain.

Now what do YOU think about what I said

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Think of the turf system as like a lantern:

The leaf blade is the wick
The fuel bottle is the soil
The kerosene is water from rain and irrigation

The flame is air flow from wind

When air flow moves across the surface of the green, the water is drawn out of the soil through the leaf blade. But when greens are surrounded by trees the air flow isn't adequate to draw the water out of the soil. These soils become waterlogged and the turf struggles for lack of oxygen in the soil. Healthy soil has a balance of air and water, but in an environment where air flow is greatly restricted the balance tips to water.

Thank you.  This is exactly why I believe fans have become obsolete as memberships understand the benefits of tree removal.  On courses like Yale where that is not possible I also believe the modern membership will accept slower speeds rather than see their course go further into debt.  These are just a couple of the reasons the fans have become obsolete.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old.  It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf.  If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer.  My 100% stands.

Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.

[John Kavanaugh]

If we are really interested in change and controlling this destructive race for increased green speeds I have a solution.  Dr. Klein, Ron Whitten and Joe Passov simply issue a decree to all courses interested in inclusion to their top 100 lists that green side fans during member play will exclude their courses from consideration.  30 years ago there wasn't a top 100 club with green side fans.  Then the money started to flow and everything went to hell.

[John Kavanaugh]

I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old.  It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf.  If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer.  My 100% stands.

Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.

If you are seriously telling me that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 73 are not satisfactory for golf then you are part of the problem.

[JESII]

A couple questions for the superintendent's on this thread...

In an ideal world would you have fans on your course?

Assuming not, how would you propose producing the playing conditions that fans make possible?


I'm with John in that I simply can't believe the answer is fans or dirt but that seems to be the position here. I'm no professional either so if that is really the answer, please feel comfortable telling me so (even privately).

[Steven Blake]

John,

The fact that the greens where slow in 1973 at Oamont by todays standards then yes it would be unacceptable to a great majority of the country club members in the United States.  If our greens rolled that fast for our member/guest or club championship I would have an aweful lot of explaining to do.  

John your right tree removal is the better solution but yet you blame the superintendent every single time.  What if the greens committe/ chairman or board of directors said they didnt want to remove trees?  And they still demand greens over 11 on a daliy basis? Then fans would be a good choice.

Steve Blake

[Don_Mahaffey]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I hope a Superintendent didn't write that it is either fans or dirt.
Very, very few Superintendents have every tool they desire. Fans are another tool used by Supers, just as chemicals, personnel, cultural practices, nutrients...etc...

One thing I especially do not like about this business is how we hold up those who have all they want as the model to follow.

Who cares is some famous course has all the money in the world and the fastest greens in the world? is that really what we in golf should be celebrating? Fans are a requirement at some courses, there is no doubt about that. But all those power runs and the equipment itself is very expensive and it is not for all courses. And, no matter what anyone says, I think they are butt ugly.

I commend courses that use tree clearing and common sense management to go without fans, and I do not condemn those who make the choice to use them. To each his own.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old.  It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf.  If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer.  My 100% stands.

Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.

If you are seriously telling me that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 73 are not satisfactory for golf then you are part of the problem.

John,
  Most golfers in America would not want to play on the turf conditions of 40 years ago. Would you want to drive on a road of 40 years ago or the most modern roads?

[Aaron McMaster]

A couple questions for the superintendent's on this thread...

In an ideal world would you have fans on your course?

Assuming not, how would you propose producing the playing conditions that fans make possible?


I'm with John in that I simply can't believe the answer is fans or dirt but that seems to be the position here. I'm no professional either so if that is really the answer, please feel comfortable telling me so (even privately).

In an ideal world I don't think any super want's fans.  It's not like you wake up one morning and say I want fans.  Not all areas of the country or world for that matter require them.  I equate it to a Colt quote in the 20's....all the suitable land for golf has been used up...or something to that effect.  We started building courses in places that are very difficult to maintain, bad soils, forests, etc so supers have been asked to adapt to these evnironments yet a course built in the south of Indiana has a membership that thinks they should get the same greens and green speeds as a course on say long island where mother nature takes care of a lot.

I love when people tell me how natural one place is and the other is contrived.....it's all contrived, everything we produce on a course is manipulated to look or play a certain way.  Some areas require less manipulation, others require a lot of manipulation.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

The fact that the greens where slow in 1973 at Oamont by todays standards then yes it would be unacceptable to a great majority of the country club members in the United States.  If our greens rolled that fast for our member/guest or club championship I would have an aweful lot of explaining to do.  

John your right tree removal is the better solution but yet you blame the superintendent every single time.  What if the greens committe/ chairman or board of directors said they didnt want to remove trees?  And they still demand greens over 11 on a daliy basis? Then fans would be a good choice.

Steve Blake

This video has some clips showing the roll out on the greens at Oakmont in 73.  My God, they are not slow by today's or any standard.  

Oh, and btw I love turf conditions from my teenage years.  There are greens that I could drive in 76 that I can not reach today with modern equipment.  Even courses in Southern Illinois were as firm as the finest British Open courses before the advent of irrigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwzw18rjXW0

[Aaron McMaster]

I have lived with Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont during the 73 Open since I was 13 yrs old.  It is one of the iconic rounds in the history of golf.  If you are not interested in playing Oakmont in those same conditions, for historical significance, if nothing else, you are not a golfer.  My 100% stands.

Again, I wouldn't have a desire. Id be more involved at the quality of turf. Turfgrass of 40 years ago wouldn't be an enjoyable round for me. Id guess my eyes are more trained to turf than yours, but I'm sure you'll try to convince me that you're the professional.

If you are seriously telling me that the turf conditions at Oakmont in 73 are not satisfactory for golf then you are part of the problem.

John the turf conditions of 40 years ago would get a super fired in one season now.  Look back at old tour event pictures and you'll see dead turf all over the fairways if that event was played in the heat of the summer.  Hell forever, people just assumed poa died every summer and then would come back the follow season, hence the name annual bluegrass.  

To your original point of the thread, I think that the turf researchers and breeders will eventually remove the need for fans.  It may not happen as fast as you like but I do believe that will happen.

[Steven Blake]

Don,

I agree with your stantement about high profile clubs and ultra fast greens, however the reality is that most members want to be Oakmont. Champagne taste on a beer budget!


Steve Blake

[Brent Hutto]

For me as a player, some forms of "manipulation" are more congenial than others. Cunningly designed artificial contours, if done properly, can offer a more pleasing golf experience than a dead-flat piece of property would provide without the shaping. Those courses with frilly bunkers that are carefully manicured to always look just the right amount of "unkempt" can be beautiful AND playable although they would probably be neither if left to nature.

On the subject of trees, in heavily forested property even clearing out undergrowth to make balls easier to find or moving the tree lines well away from greens and fairways to provide light and air movement can be a "manipulation" in what was basically woodland before the course was built. But that "manipulation" is a darned sight better than the alternative (again from this golfer's perspective).

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the part that beggars belief is that anyone who plays a course regularly might consider fans around the greens as anything but the least-desirable, last-resort, bottom of the list of acceptable "manipulations". By comparison, tree removal, higher cuts, slower speeds, almost any alternative would seem less injurious to the experience of playing the course. I love putting, it is one of my favorite elements of the game. And I love putting on fast and smooth greens. But damn, not if it means putting with those fans roaring all around me on hot days. Give me a smooth but slower green and no fans 100 times out of 100!

It sounds uncharitable but I can only come up with two possible explanations. Either the members of these clubs value the putting part of the game to the virtual exclusion of all other elements of enjoyment or they are totally in the thrall of what they believe is a competition for the absolute highest putting speeds at all costs.

[Aaron McMaster]

John,

The fact that the greens where slow in 1973 at Oamont by todays standards then yes it would be unacceptable to a great majority of the country club members in the United States.  If our greens rolled that fast for our member/guest or club championship I would have an aweful lot of explaining to do.  

John your right tree removal is the better solution but yet you blame the superintendent every single time.  What if the greens committe/ chairman or board of directors said they didnt want to remove trees?  And they still demand greens over 11 on a daliy basis? Then fans would be a good choice.

Steve Blake

This video has some clips showing the roll out on the greens at Oakmont in 73.  My God, they are not slow by today's or any standard.  

Oh, and btw I love turf conditions from my teenage years.  There are greens that I could drive in 76 that I can not reach today with modern equipment.  Even courses in Southern Illinois were as firm as the finest British Open courses before the advent of irrigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwzw18rjXW0

John are you just one of those everything older is better, I remember gentler times etc?  In that video, Miller hits a putt at the 6:08 mark that can't be 12 ft and he flicks his wrist so damn hard that in todays us open the ball would've run off the green and this is without insert putters which damn near deadens a struck putt now.

If you want to have logical dialoge about whether or not we should roll back the green speeds, remove insert putters etc that's cool but to say it was faster back then is just, well not logical.

Dead grass and hard pan do roll like hell btw

[Aaron McMaster]

For me as a player, some forms of "manipulation" are more congenial than others. Cunningly designed artificial contours, if done properly, can offer a more pleasing golf experience than a dead-flat piece of property would provide without the shaping. Those courses with frilly bunkers that are carefully manicured to always look just the right amount of "unkempt" can be beautiful AND playable although they would probably be neither if left to nature.

On the subject of trees, in heavily forested property even clearing out undergrowth to make balls easier to find or moving the tree lines well away from greens and fairways to provide light and air movement can be a "manipulation" in what was basically woodland before the course was built. But that "manipulation" is a darned sight better than the alternative (again from this golfer's perspective).

As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the part that beggars belief is that anyone who plays a course regularly might consider fans around the greens as anything but the least-desirable, last-resort, bottom of the list of acceptable "manipulations". By comparison, tree removal, higher cuts, slower speeds, almost any alternative would seem less injurious to the experience of playing the course. I love putting, it is one of my favorite elements of the game. And I love putting on fast and smooth greens. But damn, not if it means putting with those fans roaring all around me on hot days. Give me a smooth but slower green and no fans 100 times out of 100!

It sounds uncharitable but I can only come up with two possible explanations. Either the members of these clubs value the putting part of the game to the virtual exclusion of all other elements of enjoyment or they are totally in the thrall of what they believe is a competition for the absolute highest putting speeds at all costs. BINGO!

[Sean McCue]

To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.

Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.  

[Anthony_Nysse]

To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.

Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.  

Extremely well stated, Sean!

[Steven Blake]

Mr. McCue,

Great insight!

If Mr. Kavanaugh had simply stated that he did not like fans and thought tree removal and raising the height of cut was better option then fine, what superintendent wouldn't agree with that?? However blaming superintendents for fans and how we can't grow grass and how we are lazy and how he has no solutions that do not blame superintendents is why he gets himself in trouble.

Steve Blake

[Tim Martin]

To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.

Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.  

Sean-To say that John is everything that is wrong with this site because of his position on this subject is both unfair and unwarranted. When you get to his level of contribution on GCA get back to us. I know you are marching in on 100 posts....

[Anthony_Nysse]

To all fellow Superintendent's who are trying to educate our friend John, its a losing battle. This guy is all that is wrong with this site and no matter how strong the facts are to support any agronomic side it won't matter in his eyes. He is the member we all cringe at when we see on the course and nothing is ever good enough for him. I would love to see him sit in our shoes and see perform miracles with limited resources under environmentally hostile conditions and unrealistic member expectations that are to a degrees created by both the USGA and PGA Tour. Yes, some things are self inflicted by some less qualified Superintendent's out there, but as a whole the majority of us are a well trained and highly professional group of dedicated people.

Grass need four things to perform at a high level; water, air, light and nutrition if any of these are out of balance your turf system will begin to struggle and not perform as it should. We as Superintendent's have to mange a living breathing thing and often times manipulate things that are not in the best interest to the turf all to meet daily expectations. If we are not doing everything to create proper growing conditions by removing overgrown trees or as a last resort adding fans for air circulation, then we are not doing our job educating our memberships about cause and effect.  

Sean-To say that John is everything that is wrong with this site because of his position on this subject is both unfair and unwarranted. When you get to his level of contribution on GCA get back to us. I know you are marching in on 100 posts....

Quality over quantity, Tim....

[Steven Blake]

So I guess the Merion thread is the most meaningful thread in the history of GCA, because of the number of posts.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()