Always greener - the American pursuit of perfect turf - podcast

[Thomas Dai]

Folks may wish to listen to this 30 min or so Podcast - https://thefriedegg.com/fried-egg-podcast/fried-egg-stories-episode-11-always-greener-the-american-pursuit-of-perfect-turf/
Make of it what you wish just don’t shoot the postman!
Atb

[John Emerson]

“American obsession with perfect green turf-where it came from and how it effects us today”—oh boy where do I start?  The overall net product of this phenomenon is negative...highly negative, especially in regards to environmental impact.

[John Emerson]

I’m surprised more people didn’t bite here.  A lot of people have strong feelings about this on this site.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I listened. Pretty well done.


I like how the host mentioned that links courses in a UK climate and the typical clay soiled American course are two different animals. While you can let links turf lean out and go dormant, if you do that on a typical American layout you get fairways of dirt and thistle. That being said, it should be acceptable to have uniform coverage without uniform color.

There seems to be this theme that we should just let US courses get browned out like in the UK and I can assure you that UK ugly is not like American ugly. UK ugly is much prettier. Talking about golf courses here.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think its overstated on here how natural UK links courses are.  Go see Bembridge on the IOW, a famous links course "let go".  Mostly moss when I saw it one Easter.  Or Granville in summer where no chemicals are allowed and no automatic irrigation- mostly weeds.
A golf course like a garden, needs the hand of man or it's a wilderness.  True some need a LOT more intervention than others, but let's not romanticize links courses.

[John Emerson]

I think its overstated on here how natural UK links courses are.  Go see Bembridge on the IOW, a famous links course "let go".  Mostly moss when I saw it one Easter.  Or Granville in summer where no chemicals are allowed and no automatic irrigation- mostly weeds.
A golf course like a garden, needs the hand of man or it's a wilderness.  True some need a LOT more intervention than others, but let's not romanticize links courses.

I think we romanticize the turf expectation threshold.  Here green is best and greener is even better.  Green requires tons of inputs. 

[Lou_Duran]

I think its overstated on here how natural UK links courses are.  Go see Bembridge on the IOW, a famous links course "let go".  Mostly moss when I saw it one Easter.  Or Granville in summer where no chemicals are allowed and no automatic irrigation- mostly weeds.
A golf course like a garden, needs the hand of man or it's a wilderness.  True some need a LOT more intervention than others, but let's not romanticize links courses.

Nor grossly overemphasize that Americans require perfection.  In my 50+ years playing golf all over the country, outside of these pages and the occasional comment on TV, I never heard a reference to the Augusta National Syndrome.  Of the many top 100 courses I've played, only once have I heard of a maintenance scheme based on achieving near Masters conditions, and that was at a club founded by second or third generation AN members with the important modifier that it was only during brief periods for tournaments.


No doubt that green is a preferred color- there is literature out there that points this out as a general affinity, well beyond golfers.  But when water and some fertilizer is withheld from our mostly heavy-soil courses, playing conditions deteriorate to the point where most golfers just don't enjoy the game.  F & F is an ideal that is very hard to achieve, and practically impossible on a routine basis for courses with typical rainfalls and bad soil.  A sure way to kill the game here is to greatly restrict water and chemical inputs. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I’ve only just heard the FriedEgg podcast. I thought it was excellent and very thought provoking.

 A sure way to kill the game here is to greatly restrict water and chemical inputs.

But isn’t it inevitable that chemicals and water usage will be greatly restricted in years to come?


Isn’t it pissing in the wind to pretend otherwise?


A sure way to kill the game is for it to become viewed as an ecologically destructive dinosaur.


Pertinent to the concurrent thread on irrigation, golf courses should be confined to regions where they can be maintained sustainably.

[John Emerson]

I’ve only just heard the FriedEgg podcast. I thought it was excellent and very thought provoking.

 A sure way to kill the game here is to greatly restrict water and chemical inputs.

But isn’t it inevitable that chemicals and water usage will be greatly restricted in years to come?


Isn’t it pissing in the wind to pretend otherwise?


A sure way to kill the game is for it to become viewed as an ecologically destructive dinosaur.


Pertinent to the concurrent thread on irrigation, golf courses should be confined to regions where they can be maintained sustainably.

I agree with you that it’s only a matter of time before inputs are much more heavily regulated.  But, I will tell you that it IS NOT the fault of golf.  While they contribute to the problem they are a drop in the bucket compared to the agricultural sector and home owners.  Home owners are the most reckless and ignorant bunch I have dealt with in my life.  If anyone should be regulated it should be them.  They should have zero access to pesticides and fertilizers.

[Thomas Dai]

For ease of reference this is the thread on irrigation that Duncan mentions in his above post -
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69196.0.html
This one might also have relevance although from a slightly different angle -
https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69204.0.html
Atb

[David_Tepper]

Duncan C. -

Out of curiosity, how much golf have you played in the US?

DT

 

[James Reader]

There’s more than one way to keep things green! How did we arrive at a point where painting grass green is a thing?


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2018/01/going-green--golf-courses-benefit-by-painting-fairways-instead-o.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CPainting%20instead%20of%20overseeding%20fairways,playing%20conditions%20are%20better%2C%20too

[Tom_Doak]

There’s more than one way to keep things green! How did we arrive at a point where painting grass green is a thing?


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2018/01/going-green--golf-courses-benefit-by-painting-fairways-instead-o.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CPainting%20instead%20of%20overseeding%20fairways,playing%20conditions%20are%20better%2C%20too

DUH - Television!


They even painted the greens at Memorial Park for the telecast of the Houston Open this year.  In the run-up to the event, I was also surprised how much the Tour was concerned with bare spots in out-of-play areas, the only reason being the possibility of something not looking green on TV.  I guess they do not want the sponsors' eyes to have to see such a thing as brown grass or bare dirt!

[Peter Pallotta]

When as popular a site as the fried egg is tackling the issue, I think it may be time to reframe it:
What if, instead of characterizing it as America's obsession with perfection we call it America's 'pursuit of excellence'?
That way, when we promote a more natural aesthetic and a paler patina, with less inputs and interventions, resulting in firmer and healthier conditions, guided by the peaceful and sustainable wholesomeness of seasonal change, with the browning of dormancy and the greening of re-birth, we can say that it's a shining example of America's pursuit of excellence instead of looking down our noses and sneering at the fools who are addicted to perfection.
It might be a more efficacious and fair-mind approach.
No one reacts well to being called a deplorable.

[Lou_Duran]

I’ve only just heard the FriedEgg podcast. I thought it was excellent and very thought provoking.

 A sure way to kill the game here is to greatly restrict water and chemical inputs.

But isn’t it inevitable that chemicals and water usage will be greatly restricted in years to come?


Isn’t it pissing in the wind to pretend otherwise?


A sure way to kill the game is for it to become viewed as an ecologically destructive dinosaur.


Pertinent to the concurrent thread on irrigation, golf courses should be confined to regions where they can be maintained sustainably.

On the first question, no, I don't think it is inevitable that chemical and water use will be greatly restricted in the American future.   The zeitgeist may seem to suggest that they will be, but like most movements, they reach a point of diminishing returns and the pendulum starts to swing back.  I know of courses that marketed on being 100% organic but never actually were, and eventually had to start applying chemicals heavily because of poor turf conditions and an abundance of weeds in the playing areas.


I remember one of our former resident Lefties back in 2005 sending me an article on peak oil penned by one of his colleagues in academia.   As so happened, my son was working in the energy practice of a leading investment bank and he forwarded me a summary of the research which they used to make large investment decisions.  It showed known worldwide reserves accessible with current technology of over 200 years, with another 100 years likely based on expected extraction methods well in development, and more than another 100 years with likely new technologies and worldwide consumption efficiencies.  Today, we don't hear so much of peak oil.  The environmentally religious speak of sequestering carbon and stranding petroleum assets by government fiat.


More rainwater washes into rivers and then the oceans in large storms than many cities like Los Angeles consume in a year.  There are ways to divert and capture some of this water, but getting a reservoir approved even in business-friendly areas like much of Texas is nearly impossible.  Just repairing leaky pipes in municipal water systems and our own homes would make a huge differences.  And if one believes in the orthodoxy of man-made climate change and going green, certainly the ongoing advancements in desalinization can take advantage of the rising sea levels, providing the double benefit of more usable clean water AND lower the impact of coastal flooding.


As to your second question, I don't accept your POV as remotely factual, so no, surrendering to faulty assumptions is actually pretending.  To do as you suggest would be pissing my pants, and I am not to the point where I need to wear diapers.


Re: your last comment, which I will not take personally and be offended by it, the game is already viewed as elitist and destructive by those who are elitist, close-minded, and rather ignorant of science, economics, and the environment.  One of the benefits of age is experience and I have seen a good part of the world.  When it comes to environmental hell holes, visit countries which have no golf culture, marginal agriculture, and poor housing.  Conversely, if one wants to see a relatively clean, healthy environment, see where golf has a strong root and a good working economy.  I don't worry a lot about what illiberal folks think and I have long stopped trying to influence their thinking.     

[James Reader]

There’s more than one way to keep things green! How did we arrive at a point where painting grass green is a thing?


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2018/01/going-green--golf-courses-benefit-by-painting-fairways-instead-o.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CPainting%20instead%20of%20overseeding%20fairways,playing%20conditions%20are%20better%2C%20too

DUH - Television!


They even painted the greens at Memorial Park for the telecast of the Houston Open this year.  In the run-up to the event, I was also surprised how much the Tour was concerned with bare spots in out-of-play areas, the only reason being the possibility of something not looking green on TV.  I guess they do not want the sponsors' eyes to have to see such a thing as brown grass or bare dirt!

I knew this was done for TV, Tom - with Augusta being the poster child for it - just didn’t realise that it was practised more widely until I read this article.  Although “duh” is probably right. What people see on TV they’ll expect on the courses they play.

[jeffwarne]

I think its overstated on here how natural UK links courses are.  Go see Bembridge on the IOW, a famous links course "let go".  Mostly moss when I saw it one Easter.  Or Granville in summer where no chemicals are allowed and no automatic irrigation- mostly weeds.
A golf course like a garden, needs the hand of man or it's a wilderness.  True some need a LOT more intervention than others, but let's not romanticize links courses.

Nor grossly overemphasize that Americans require perfection.  In my 50+ years playing golf all over the country, outside of these pages and the occasional comment on TV, I never heard a reference to the Augusta National Syndrome.  Of the many top 100 courses I've played, only once have I heard of a maintenance scheme based on achieving near Masters conditions, and that was at a club founded by second or third generation AN members with the important modifier that it was only during brief periods for tournaments.


No doubt that green is a preferred color- there is literature out there that points this out as a general affinity, well beyond golfers.  But when water and some fertilizer is withheld from our mostly heavy-soil courses, playing conditions deteriorate to the point where most golfers just don't enjoy the game.  F & F is an ideal that is very hard to achieve, and practically impossible on a routine basis for courses with typical rainfalls and bad soil.  A sure way to kill the game here is to greatly restrict water and chemical inputs.

Lou, while I agree with many of your points,I think the pendulum on Americans and "perfect" conditioning is swinging a bit.
(now if we could just get past the "fast" bullshit and focus on the firm)
Look at the success of Ohoopee, where funds are not in short supply and their primary season is on dormant brown/white turf from non overseeded bermuda.(not due to less water but rather crisp fall/winter nights)
I don't think there has been a faster rise on GOLF rankings lists, nor have I heard one negative comment about turf color.


Of course a Texas climate and a heavy soil are two very different things than a UK climate( and a links soil (fast and firm far easier when temperatures rarely rise above 70 degrees and ample water falls from the sky)
That said, not all UK courses are are sand based and no doubt many have the same challenges we do here in the US-but more moderate air and soil temperatures help greatly.
I think we all learned a couple summers ago that even in a UK climate and links soils, SOME rain (or irrigation)is needed, or eventually firm and fast goes dormant,which is great to play on, then dead.---which is a long road back, especially if no artificial irrigation for grow in.


Just saying a reduction in green(when practical and appropriate) could /would be a healthy thing here, and I like to think more golfers could get on board if we'd just let 'em.

[Thomas Dai]

It’s worth mentioning that US courses shouldn’t feel especially picked-on in respect of their desire for manicured perfection, ‘green is god’ etc etc.
It’s not just the US, it’s essentially courses anywhere irrespective of type of course, location, climate, topography, soil type etc that adopt such an approach that attracts the ire of some including me. And there are unfortunately more than a few courses in GB&I, both inland and links, including premium venues, which have moved towards this approach over the last couple of decades or so to the displeasure of some.
Atb

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,


I am essentially on your side of the argument- I prefer firm conditions and only moderately fast greens, the speed mostly dependent on the amount of slope and internal contouring (Augusta National greens above 10' would be torture for me after my first round).  The pendulum I am speaking about is still swinging toward fewer inputs and it may have a ways to go, though I hope it would be by prudent choice and not regulation.   


Your counterpart at my home club, and through him the superintendent, have heard from me on several occasions that many of the members feel that the course is too soft/over-watered.  The response has generally been that it is irrigated as it is NOT because the members want an Augusta green experience.  The wet conditions which we experience in the morning are due to the inadequacy of the nearly 20 year-old irrigation system and the factors noted by Jeff Brauer in the other current irrigation thread.  If we played in the afternoon, the problem of wet conditions is mostly moot, but then we get into pace of play issues, 4-4.5 hours vs. 3 at 8:00 a.m.


You probably have a wider perspective on what golfers want than I do.  I know relatively few uppity golfers, but "manicured perfection" as David notes nearby is not what the vast majority of us expect or want.  Most have reasonable expectations and understand that the costs to gain that additional degree of idealized conditions are much higher than the benefits.


Speaking from my mostly American experience, in reality, we may aspire to Masters green (for two or so weeks, maybe a month surrounding the tournament), but are content with flat tees, good coverage of mostly firm, multi-hued turf, raked bunkers with decent sand, and greens that are mostly smooth.  And that is at the private club level.  I suspect that the daily-fee and muni golfer has even more spartan expectations consistent with the greenfee.