Clay Putnam, CGCS said: Keith Fellenstein said: Ronald Conard, CGCS said: Keith Fellenstein said: Ronald Conard, CGCS said: The place looks like golf should look. They get it....too bad the American golfer doesn't.
Pinehurst looked the way Pinehurst should look. Pretty big stretch to say all golf should look that way...even all American golf.
would agree but I'm not sure I said all golf should look exactly like Pinehurst. You've missed the point. The point is, many elements could be applied at most all of our courses. Do we need manicure lush turf from tee to fairway? Do bunker edges need to be perfectly edged and maintained? Can fairway bunkers be more waste areas than expected to be perfectly maintained, everyday of the week? Can we reduce irrigation by say.. 30%?
The point is absolutely we can. But it's the perception of the American golfer that won't allow it. Not a chance. At least at this time. In 2002 we went through a extremely dry year. We were on a very strict water allotment between our two courses. We shut the water off completely in the roughs on our 9-hole course as the system was old and in need of replacement. Basically we turned the place into a target golf set up very similar to the look of Pinehurst minus the sand waste areas of the fairways. That was dormant bluegrass. It played great and to me looked great. But you know what? People hated it. They stop playing because the only thing different that season was that the rough was not irrigated. As soon as the drought broke and the roughs recovered, which since it was bluegrass it did not take long, people came back in droves.
Bottom line: We are fighting an uphill battle in that we are pressured to save money by reducing inputs and yet when we do, the deep seated perception that "lush is good, lush is golf, firm and fast is not", rises to the surface.
Take a look around your course. How much of the maintenance that you are doing is fluff? Of course fluff that your golfers want, but all the same, fluff. That's the problem. Pinehurst at least showed the world, on the big stage, that some in America get it. that over the top maintenance is not necessary to be accepted by some at least. The good news it's a start.
I didn't miss the point and you did say it looked the way golf should. I think you missed my point. Not every property could or should do what they did at Pinehurst. Removing the rough on my clay soils will not produce the same product as Pinehurst sandy soils. The US Open is always an extreme to test the best golfers in the world. The average player doesn't understand that and any good message gets lost in translation. Why can't we celebrate the uniqueness of every property and every climate...be responsible with resources sure, but one size does not fit all.
I agree with Ron and he is not suggesting all courses should be identical to Pinehurst. What he is suggesting is that, generally speaking, most golfers are used to and only accept green, everywhere. The golfers are not used to nor accept droughty surfaces, no matter how small, within the playing surfaces. Additionally, these same golfers are used to crisp straight edges on bunkers, etc, etc...IMO, maintenance reductions while providing quality playing surfaces are not exclusive to sand based golf courses. Every golf course can make reductions. The only thing holding them back are egos and their unwillingness to change.
If I have said it once I have said it a hundred times, golf has to make a comprehensive change to include how, when, and where maintenance is performed.
There is no template that works everywhere. In stead of the Augusta syndrome, or falling all over ourselves trying to be Pinehurst no. 2, each must find their own path. Let's stop putting the Open course (or any other for that matter) on a pedestal as the epitome of what golf should be. The average player doesn't understand that features on those courses cannot always be replicated elsewhere. Golf should be something different at every property you tee it up. It certainly was refreshing to see something other than 6" rough and pristine conditions from treeline to treeline. I say celebrate the diversity and variety (including the 6" roughs). If you don't want to crisply edge your bunkers, go ahead, but don't criticize the guy that does. There are plenty of opportunities to reduce wasteful inefficiencies and cut out the "fluff", If we are half the stewards we claim to be, we should know our properties well enough to make those adjustments towards reducing maintenance even within the constraints of the expectations of the "American Golfer" (as if that generalization has any meaning). But, let's not use a single event that's tricked up once a year as the shining example for all. Yes, I get it, the concepts and ideas are good, and so is the discussion. But to paint with such a broad brush (see the original post) really loses all meaning.