[Paul Gray]

Dave,


Your post just highlights the need for this discussion to be out there in the open for the golfing world to hear and take part in.


The current scenario you describe is a lose-lose situation. Either you go bankrupt because costs spiral out of control as you apply ever more treatment to get the customers in or you go bankrupt because you budget low, keep the course in A1 condition for the GCA crew and have no other customers.


Until expectations are not simply lowered but actually changed, ie. people understand how and why f&f is not only necessary but actually desirable, the golf industry will continue to struggle to make ends meet.

[Peter Pallotta]

"....or you go bankrupt because you budget low, keep the course in A1 condition for the GCA crew and have no other customers."

And sorry to say, let's not forget the dirty little secret, Paul -- i.e. that the "gca crew" can be a fickle, status-conscious and name-dropping lot, their "hidden gems" needing to precisely the right kind of hidden and just the right kind of gem, and they eyes a lot bigger than their stomachs when it comes to F&F as it relates to anything by their own enjoyment. Dare I say, very few of the gca crew ever have or ever would travel to play Dave's golf course, just as few (as in almost no one) ever went to check out the wonders that Joe H was able to achieve with the turf on his own modest public course, with nothing but time and skill and his own beliefs to work with.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,


While some may strive for A1 conditions, that's not the jist of this thread.


When a course produces conditions that preclude roll, getting that course to produce conditions that permit and/or enhance roll isn't the pursuit of achieving A1 conditions.


I think you and others are guilty of thinking in terms of extremes.


Going back to the inflation analogy, I think there's a reasonable standard which isn't close to "A1" conditions.


It's about the quality of the playing surfaces and avoiding wet, lush green playing surfaces

[Rick Emerson]

I hear lots of people saying we need to educate people. How do you do that without ticking people off? I think most Green Superintendents would tick off members if they constantly told them firm and fast was better when they came complaining about courses not being green. It seems the USGA has been trying to educate people. They talk constantly in commercials and segments about grasses that require less water and only maintaining areas in play and such. They also have been taking events to places like Chambers Bay to get the brown on TV. However, when I hear the pros and lots of average golfers complaining about the firm conditions and ugly brown course on TV it seems they may be hurting the cause more than helping. What are some positive ways of educating people about allowing mother nature to dictate course conditions? How do we convince people that if it rains a lot the course will be soft and that is ok and if there is less rain the course will brown out some and that is ok?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rick,


A superintendent's job description doesn't include educating the membership to the benefits of F&F.


That could be a risky venture.


Certain clubs/memberships get it, others don't.


The biggest impediment to moving away from lush green would seem to be televised weekly PGA Tour events.


How do you counter that influence ?


The USGA is trying, but it's an uphill battle with plenty of resistance from memberships

[Rick Emerson]

Rick,


A superintendent's job description doesn't include educating the membership to the benefits of F&F.


That could be a risky venture.


Certain clubs/memberships get it, others don't.


The biggest impediment to moving away from lush green would seem to be televised weekly PGA Tour events.


How do you counter that influence ?


The USGA is trying, but it's an uphill battle with plenty of resistance from memberships

Exactly my point. However, there seem to be a lot of people here that are smarter than myself. Maybe they can find an answer.

[Jerry Kluger]

Is the lush green being a product of TV a broad over statement? Perhaps it is so at ANGC but is it really so much a factor at other courses on TV?  Not TPC Boston, not Plainfield, not Whistling Straits, not Chambers Bay, not Sedgefield, etc.  I think it starts at home where people want lush green lawns and then they go to play courses that sell themselves by being lush green carpets to play off. 


I was quite surprised the other day when the pro I take lessons from told me he went to play the Dormie Club and wasn't impressed because when he stands on the tee he judges a hole by how "pretty" it is - I am not kidding. He wanted a beautiful looking hole and didn't care how it played.  The debate that ensued was almost depressing to me.  The fairways were firm and fast but the greens were soft so he found the course quite easy so trying to explain to him that firm greens are an important part of the conditioning was a losing battle.

[Paul Gray]

I hear lots of people saying we need to educate people. How do you do that without ticking people off?.....

You don't, hence me saying previously that an awful lot of egos will be hurt in the crossfire. This little battle of style vs substance has been brewing for a fair few years now and it won't be resolved peacefully. For the average club golfer, this is a paradigm shift. Don't expect it to pass without the guys at your club who once held office and insisted on wavy narrow fairways and trees at every dogleg getting their feathers ruffled. A few will be wise enough to listen and learn. Most however will take it personally and collapse into an ever more ridiculous series of vacuous defences and attempts to redirect the debate. Conservatism rarely dies in a conservative manner. Mackenzie and that old Persian quote comes to mind right now. Never a truer word spoken.
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's rephrase the question of conditioning along these lines:
 
Why wouldn't you want to be presented with optimal playing surfaces at whichever course you happen to be playing ?

[Joe Hancock]

Let's rephrase the question of conditioning along these lines:
 
Why wouldn't you want to be presented with optimal playing surfaces at whichever course you happen to be playing ?

Cost. Environmental impacts. Attitudes based on perceptions of what optimal playing conditions means. Unnecessary to enjoy the game. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,
 
I think you misunderstood the rephrasing of the question.
 
The rephrasing of the question was course "specific" which incorporates the issues you listed.

Let's rephrase the question of conditioning along these lines:
 
Why wouldn't you want to be presented with optimal playing surfaces at whichever course you happen to be playing ?

Cost. Environmental impacts. Attitudes based on perceptions of what optimal playing conditions means. Unnecessary to enjoy the game.

[JMEvensky]

Let's rephrase the question of conditioning along these lines:
 
Why wouldn't you want to be presented with optimal playing surfaces at whichever course you happen to be playing ?

Everyone defines "optimal playing surfaces" differently.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

You'd have to be a moron to not understand, on a course specific basis, what "optimal playing surfaces" implies.

[JMEvensky]

JME,

You'd have to be a moron to not understand, on a course specific basis, what "optimal playing surfaces" implies.

You an imply til the cows come home,but everyone will still infer their own definition.

[Anthony_Nysse]

JME,

You'd have to be a moron to not understand, on a course specific basis, what "optimal playing surfaces" implies.

"Optimal" to the GCA crowd is usually vastly different to the other 99% of golfers. Look at all the backlash that Pinehurst and Chambers Bay got for the US Opens? General public didn't care of it.

GCA'ers can find something wrong with ANGC. 99% of golfers view it as the holy grail of golf and view it as perfect. Its the only course that has a been dubbed with it's own "syndrome."




You an imply til the cows come home,but everyone will still infer their own definition.

[Sean_A]

I like f&f as much as the next fellow, but I accept that it is rarely possible or affordable in the A1 form Pat alludes to.  There are, however, many shades of the ideal which are plenty fun to play.  As Joe suggests, what worries me is the buffer of lush which has become acceptable and every super has his own defined buffer of what he thinks is safe.  And now, we are coming up with all sorts of different strands of grass (which are expensive to install) which may or may not have long term consequences...the jury is still out.  Like Joe, in general, I think it is best for many clubs to make do with what grows best...naturally.  Learn its charactersitcs and get the max out of it.  Don't get me wrong, it is wonderful to play on a great surface, but this is fools gold if folks think it can be done everywhere, anywhere near most of the time.  I just accept that at best I will see awesome conditioning maybe a few times a year. This year I have yet to see a course in great nick and I have played some of the best courses in the world. 


Of course, for 12 month cubs it is important to see how a course is during winter months. To me, this is the important time of year when good green keeping will properly shine.


Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Let's rephrase the question of conditioning along these lines:
 
Why wouldn't you want to be presented with optimal playing surfaces at whichever course you happen to be playing ?

Because the question assumes there is such a thing as optimal. Much as I love the very firmest of conditions, I'm equally happy to experience the seasonality available at a club which follows nature's lead. I don't have an issue with my 8 iron bouncing big in the summer and holding up in the winter. That ever changing calculation is all part of the game of golf, a game primarily about the interaction between ball and turf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JME,

You'd have to be a moron to not understand, on a course specific basis, what "optimal playing surfaces" implies.

You an imply til the cows come home,but everyone will still infer their own definition.

The cows just came home, and on a "course specific" basis, all, with the exception of morons, understand what "optimal playing surfaces" are.

[Anthony_Nysse]

JME,

You'd have to be a moron to not understand, on a course specific basis, what "optimal playing surfaces" implies.

You an imply til the cows come home,but everyone will still infer their own definition.

The cows just came home, and on a "course specific" basis, all, with the exception of morons, understand what "optimal playing surfaces" are.

Golf will never survive on the 1%. The 99% want it more like Augusta then they do Pinehurst.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's rephrase the question of conditioning along these lines:
 
Why wouldn't you want to be presented with optimal playing surfaces at whichever course you happen to be playing ?

Because the question assumes there is such a thing as optimal.

I believe that there is in the context of the date of evaluation.

Much as I love the very firmest of conditions, I'm equally happy to experience the seasonality available at a club which follows nature's lead.

I cited "course specific" which accounts for locale and weather

I don't have an issue with my 8 iron bouncing big in the summer and holding up in the winter. That ever changing calculation is all part of the game of golf, a game primarily about the interaction between ball and turf.

You must have missed my reference to "course specific".

There may be a moron or two out there who think that a golf course is static for all 365/6 days in the calendar year.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,

I think your comment goes to the debate regarding form versus substance.

And, I believe that TV unduly influences the 99 %

[Paul Gray]

Pat,


For once I'm happy to allow you this. I wouldn't personally suggest locale and weather is implied within "course specific" but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in this instance, meaning you've made a fair point. Well done. 

[Anthony_Nysse]

Anthony,

I think your comment goes to the debate regarding form versus substance.



And, I believe that TV unduly influences the 99 %

TV also has allowed most golfers to voice what they want and don't want. Majority of golfers enjoy green, lush, manicured conditions. (Manicured is in the eyes of the beholder.) Golfers tend to be more impressed with Augusta, Muirfield and Oakmont than Chambers Bay

[Patrick_Mucci]

Anthony,


I have to admit that I thought that this year's Open was being telecast from the moon.


It seemed "extreme" by comparison to other telecasts.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Anthony,


I have to admit that I thought that this year's Open was being telecast from the moon.


It seemed "extreme" by comparison to other telecasts.

Very fair. I think that Oakmont will knock it out of the park in 2016. Fast, firm and will fit everyone's eye.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()