[Kalen Braley]

I think that golf would then become even more of a two class society. The haves (with grass) and the havenots (without).

Ulrich,

Wouldn't that be flip flopped?  I saw an earlier post that an 18 hole course would be an approx $50 million install cost.  Even if it was only half that, that would still more expensive than most.

[Jason Thurman]

The entire premise of this thread is ridiculous.


I've been hitting off artificial turf at my club at least once a week for the last 6 weeks.


I hit off artificial turf every time I go to TopGolf.


Simulator golf is played almost exclusively on artificial turf.


There are entire indoor, year-round practice facilities where you can work on your entire game and also play against friends on simulators... all on artificial turf.


Golf uses plenty of artificial turf. It might gradually continue to use a little more, but just because a course hasn't yet been "grassed" with 90+ acres of the crap doesn't mean it hasn't found a place in the game.


I'm bullish on the idea that simulator golf, TopGolf, and other artificial-turf-driven forms of the game will keep growing. I think we'd do well to encourage those avenues as far less land/resource-intensive ways to make the game accessible, rather than always groaning that they're "not real golf." I don't think anybody confuses them for such, but they are often a lot more fun than "real golf" for people new to the game, time constrained, etc.


But the joy of playing on real turf in the real outdoors also isn't going to go away where climate and acreage permits.

[Mark_Fine]

Jason,
The premise was when will all those things you talk about (which I agree with have and are happening) move to artificial turf's use on more actual golf courses?  For example why didn't Tom Doak or Mark Fine use artificial turf for the tees at Memorial and Bethlehem respectively     Both are city courses with lots of play.

[SL_Solow]

Mark,  an apology, the names of the holes at Rich Harvest run together sometimes.  The artificial turf tee is on #4 called Devil's Elbow.  Snead's Crotch is #12 which is a relatively short dogleg 4 with 2 big trees in the middle of the fairway. I think you are remembering 13 a long par 3 with a tree hanging over the right front of the green

[SL_Solow]

John, following up on our discussion and recognizing your superior expertise, I continue to have some questions.  I agree that residential lawn care is a significant problem and I will confine my discussion to golf courses.  First, grass is much more beneficial than turf with regard to the ability to absorb CO2 and release Oxygen.  It also is cooler in warm weather.  Regarding the suggestion that all treatments to increase N are the same, I suggest that the speed and manner of release differs and that difference can have a significant impact.  Finally (for this post) I question whether the location of the water table might make a difference on the impact of inputs.  This is not to suggest that over fertilization is not a problem but superintendents have made great progress in this area along with their more intelligent use of pesticides.  If your suggestion is that courses could be "browner", I agree for a lot of reasons but we shouldn't paint golf courses with a negative environmental brush.

[Tom_Doak]

For example why didn't Tom Doak or Mark Fine use artificial turf for the tees at Memorial and Bethlehem respectively?

There's a question no one has been asking.

[Mark_Fine]

SL,
No worries.  I remember both the tee and the tree. The tree blocked most of the green.


Tom,
When do you think that question will get asked?  I know you don’t work on many muni’s and lower end high volume courses but I wonder if the time is coming soon when this will be a serious option to think about? 

[John Emerson]

John, following up on our discussion and recognizing your superior expertise, I continue to have some questions.  I agree that residential lawn care is a significant problem and I will confine my discussion to golf courses.  First, grass is much more beneficial than turf with regard to the ability to absorb CO2 and release Oxygen.  It also is cooler in warm weather.  Regarding the suggestion that all treatments to increase N are the same, I suggest that the speed and manner of release differs and that difference can have a significant impact.  Finally (for this post) I question whether the location of the water table might make a difference on the impact of inputs.  This is not to suggest that over fertilization is not a problem but superintendents have made great progress in this area along with their more intelligent use of pesticides.  If your suggestion is that courses could be "browner", I agree for a lot of reasons but we shouldn't paint golf courses with a negative environmental brush.

Golf courses have significantly reduced inputs over the years, especially nitrogen and phosphorus.  I totally agree with you, as does science, that golf courses do a great job a carbon sequestration.  C sequestration from golf courses could be much better though, even though we have made great strides in the past couple decades.  Inputs are still high due to ridiculous turf expectations. There are still many many superintendents that are poor managers of nutrients.  I know them, and I see it all the time.  With my job I try to change their habits.  Speaking about rate of nutrient release, if the turf is not deficient in a certain nutrient, such as N or P, then any that is added has a potential to be lost to the water system regardless of the form of the nutrient.  That is the art & science of nutrient management.


 There will never be a time when artificial turf is a better option than the real thing, except for the situations listed above.  Ie: reduce tee traffic and divots etc..


Yes, water table depth has a major impact on nutrient loads to water systems.  Higher the water table = higher the nutrient loss potential.

[Mark_Fine]

John,
There are situations where artificial turf is better if not the only option. The three hole First Tee course I designed and built had no choice.  It was not near another golf course and they could not have afforded the maintenance of real tees and real greens.  As much as I prefer hitting off real grass and avoid hitting off outside artificial turf if I don’t have to, I do believe tees for sure will eventually go artificial on many high volume lower end courses.  It does make sense.  They can be smaller in size as well.  In the next five years I believe this will start to happen.  It just takes a few to lead and others will follow. 


I wonder if Tiger put them in at the redesigned Peter Hay course at Pebble?  If he didn’t it wouldn’t surprise me if they add them in the next year or two if the course gets a lot of play. 

[John Emerson]

John,
There are situations where artificial turd is better if not the only option. The three hole First Tee course I designed and built had no choice.  It was not near another golf course and they could not have afforded the maintenance of real tees and real greens.  As much as I prefer hitting off real grass and avoid hitting off outside artificial turf if I don’t have to, I do believe tees for sure will eventually go artificial on many high volume lower end courses.  It does make sense.  They can be smaller in size as well.  In the next five years I believe this will start to happen.  It just takes a few to lead and others will follow. 


I wonder if Tiger put them in at the redesigned Peter Hay course at Pebble?  If he didn’t it wouldn’t surprise me if they add them in the next year or two if the course gets a lot of play.

I agree there are situations where artificial turf makes more sense, such as some of the situations mentioned in this post.  I have zero issues with hitting off artificial turf on tees.  I have zero desire to putt on them or hit approach shots. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

John,
There are situations where artificial turd is better if not the only option. The three hole First Tee course I designed and built had no choice.  It was not near another golf course and they could not have afforded the maintenance of real tees and real greens.  As much as I prefer hitting off real grass and avoid hitting off outside artificial turf if I don’t have to, I do believe tees for sure will eventually go artificial on many high volume lower end courses.  It does make sense.  They can be smaller in size as well.  In the next five years I believe this will start to happen.  It just takes a few to lead and others will follow. 

How many square feet per tee, and total sft for this low-end course?
What is your estimated price installed per sft?
How much will this reduce maintenance costs?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Obviously costs vary but if you figure around $6 sq/ft to build a real tee of say 1000 sq/ft, $2 sq/ft for sod , $3.5 sq/ft for irrigation you are looking at $11-12 sq/ft.  A good artificial tee is in the $15-20 sq/ft range.  Not much maintenance for the artificial tee but it assures you golfers will be hitting off grass vs dirt. 

[Mike Nuzzo]

Mike,
Obviously costs vary but if you figure around $6 sq/ft to build a real tee of say 1000 sq/ft, $2 sq/ft for sod , $3.5 sq/ft for irrigation you are looking at $11-12 sq/ft.  A good artificial tee is in the $15-20 sq/ft range.  Not much maintenance for the artificial tee but it assures you golfers will be hitting off grass vs dirt.

The next 5 years comment was referring to new-builds of low-end high-volume courses?
Who do you tell tees cost $11-12/sft?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Tee construction costs are all over the map as you well know from a fraction of what I quoted to almost the same cost as constructing a green.  Most of my tees are toward the lower cost end as they are low profile, no internal drainage, often straight sand, no additional irrigation required,... but again it varies.  The last artificial turf tee we did on a range was $5 sq/ft so that varies dramatically as well.  I gave you high end numbers in my earlier post.

[SB]

The costs you are throwing out are relative to a flat surface like a football field.  To contour the turf with humps and bumps, bunker shapes, etc., I think you're looking at closer to $100 million to build a full length golf course.  Or more...


The biggest bang for the buck in terms of saving money on maintenance is tees and greens.  They are relatively small, are intensely maintained and, especially in the case of tees, can result in an improved product, especially if the existing ones are small or shaded.


There is still a way to go in terms of customer expectation.  At my course, we had two tees with artificial turf.  Both were too small, and on the north side of hills with tall trees on someone else's land blocking the sun - the tees were dirt.  We put in artificial turf and you would think we painted over the Sistine Chapel.  Lots of negative comments, one star ratings, you name it.  And it's a par 61 executive course.  We finally expanded the tees by digging into the hills and building retaining walls at great expense.  We still can't grow grass well, but the extra size means there is at least some grass.  I personally prefer the turf, but man did we take a lot of heat.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()