The Blog is Back

The blog is back - but not here. Go to Weirgolfdesign.com and you will find my new blog at that location.

The Best of Caddy Shack

This blog has come to an end. I took about two years to explore golf course architecture and put all my ideas and the ideas of other under the microscope. What emerged through this experience was a lot of design clarity for me. If you’re daring enough to read from start to finish you will likely see the transition.

The Best of Caddy Shack

1. The 25 Greatest Architects in History
2. The History of Golf Course Architecture
3. A Study of 18 of the Greatest Holes in Golf
4. The 10 Course Every Architect Must Study to Understand Golf Architecture
5. Defending Against Technology - without Length
6. A Complete Look at Bunkers from Philosophy to Art
7. The Joy of the Short Par Four - with a breakdown of famous Holes
8. The Short Par Three - Everybody's favourite hole
9. The Importance of the Long Par Three - with examples
10. Short Par Fives - Balancing opportunity with calamity

Other Interesting Series

1. The Role of a Greens Committee
2. How Green is Golf - review and discussion of John Barton Article
3. The Future of Canadian Golf Course Architecture - Discussion of the Enviornment, Water Useage and Economics
4. Growing the Game
5. 10 Things I Don't Like in Golf Architecture

25 Short Pieces on Golf Architecture

1. Compression and Release
2. Do Undulating Tees Make Sense?
3. Building a "Good" Low Cost Golf Course
4. Restoration - shades of grey
5. Bunker Lips that Won't Erode
6. Bunkers Inside the Fairway Lines
7. Playing Freedoms are the Key
8. The Writings that Shaped Me
9. Redans, Biarritz and other clever holes
10. Why flanking bunkers should make a comback
11. The Value of Sweeping Fairway Contours
12. Where Maintenance Meets Architecture
13. The Biarritz Green - a history
14. The Insurmountable Hole
15. Dealing with a Flat Site
16. The Redan - a history
17. Carry Angles
18. Blindness - charm or failing?
19. The Rise of Inoffensive Architecture
20. My Eclectic Top 18 Holes
21. The Use and Value of Central Bunker
22. Target Bunkers are .... Useless
23. Breather Holes are Good
24. Are fast Greens Good or Bad for Golf
25. The Best Piece I Ever Wrote

My Article from Ontario Golf

Rubenstein on St. George's and the Canadian Open

Lorne Rubenstein has an article about the announcement of St. George’s as the 2010 host of the Canadian Open titled - St. George's short on yardage, but long on Quality.

He talks a lot about the set up and the speculation on which hole will be shortened. I add my two cents worth indicating it will be the 4th. I made a three there in my infamous round where I was one over through 13 (from the very back tees) and wound up shooting 90!

I’m quoted in the article including:

"The one thing I can say for sure is they will all say this is the best course they played all year outside the majors and perhaps Riviera [in Los Angeles],"

I really think the players will rave about the course - but unless they can rotate through great old courses like Hamilton and St. George's year after year (and avoid Glen Abbey or Angus Glen) they will never get another decent field.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080628.RUBE28/TPStory/?query=lorne+rubenstein

The reference he makes to the old 4th is found here:

http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2006/06/18-holes-day-8-4th-at-st-georges-nle.html

It includes a picture of what the old hole looked like.

Salts and Saskatoon

Testing for conductivity

The person in the photo is a fellow named Les Henry. Les wrote a publication called The Nature and Management of Salt-Affected Land in Saskatchewan. Les is from the Soil Science Department at the University of Saskatoon. The device in Les’s hands – he calls his Ouija Board – is a devise used to test for soil conductivity. In other words the devise is helping us look for salt.

If you look at Les’s feet in the photos and you will recognize the tell tale spot of white that occurs in a highly alkali soil. When the soils are drying out, the salts are drawn to the surface by evapo-transpiration and there fore we get salt crystals at the surface. Les’s devise provides a reading at the surface and again at four feet. We are taking alakali readings all across the future range at Saskatoon Golf & Country Club.

They have salts in much of the soils in Saskatchewan. Salt not only takes away the plants ability to take up water but also ties up much of the nutrients too. When I routed the new nine holes, I intentionally ran the holes over the high areas not only to deal with flooding in the spring but also to get far enough away from the water table and the saline soils underneath. The only area that I could not accomplish this was one small area on the south side where they the old 9th and 18th were - and I intentionally placed the range in this area. This was equally due to it being the ideal location for the range and also to the issue of salts.


The area for the range

So we have a range that has areas of high alkaline soils. Les spent the day taking readings which told us where the soils were alkali and where the soils were acceptable. This told me how much topsoil we could strip and use and what topsoil should be buried with fill to keep the salts from occurring in the top soil layer. Now salts can be “washed” out of the topsoil over time – the process takes a few years and recovering the soils is a common technique. We don’t have the time – so we needed to organize the build to avoid having alkali soil where we will be seeding new grass.

The future range

This trip out by Les was all about where we could get topsoil, how much soil we had to use, how to deal with the soils we had and what we should do with the range. I’ve dealt with a lot of issues – including a very difficult build at Muskoka Bay - but this issue is one is one of the most complicated I have ever had to deal with.

My Latest Golf Canada Article

Compression and Release

The 4th at Bandon Dunes

I was at a course a few weeks ago where one of the best holes on the course drops around 60 feet from the tee down into a beautiful valley and then doglegs to the left around a stand of mature pines and oaks. The club was quite convinced that the green must have been visible - when built in the 1920’s - from the tee and that trees had encroached and taken away a beautiful view of the entire hole.

In today’s day and age of golf design, it’s pretty rare to find an architect would present a hole in this manner. In fact in this world of “comfort” architecture – the main overriding philosophy is putting everything in front of player right from the tee so they can see it and understand the strategies. The idea of unveiling a hole a shot at a time is rare since this type of hole isn’t quite as photographic as a hole that unveils itself slowly. This MTV style attention span has spread to golf too – and people simply want it all and want it now – even in golf design. One of the great losses because of this is the near disappearance of a technique called compression and release.

What is compression and release? Compression is when you find yourself in a location that is narrow, very clear defined with no long views. To excellent examples are playing out of a chute of trees or playing a tee shot from a tee surrounded by higher dunes on either side. You don’t have a feel for the landscape around and only feel the edges on the landscape that you are “with-in.” In these situations you find that the golf hole is the clear single focus. The release is felt when you exit that space to a wider area with a long horizon. You immediately feel the expanse of the space around you and tend to look anywhere but at the hole. It’s actually an instinctive reaction to the change – but a fascinating aspect that can be exploited to have a larger impact on a setting you want to feature.

The 4th at Bandon Dunes is a wonderful example where David Kidd takes you between the dunes and out to the landing area. When you get there you find yourself well above the 4th green with a wide open view down the coast. You can’t help but be humbled by that experience and it takes you a while to really take in the green, since your busy admiring the stunning Oregon coastline. David did this intentionally so you’re your first look at the ocean would be as dramatic as possible. The technique he used is compression (down between the dunes) and release (having as wide a view as you get anywhere on the course).

The hole I saw works on the same principle but on a far more subtle level. The tee shot is into a clearly defined tree lined valley that feels tighter than it really is because of the elevated tees and angle. You walk down to the landing area and look to the left to see a spectacular green set up on a natural hogs back. The valley is wider, the clearing is more extensive, and looking from below widens the perspective of the view. You are stunned by the beauty of the green site but also taken back by how beautiful this glade is and how much of the natural undulations of the land that you nw can see. This too is compression and release but a far more subtle version.

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 5 of 5

“The Golf Course Superintendent” Jeff Carlson

Jeff is in change of America’s only organic course where no pesticides or chemical treatments are allowed. He just recently won the 2008 President’s Award for Environmental Stewardship from the America Golf Course Superintendent Association. Jeff was also involved in Widow’s Walk which has been called an environmental demonstration golf course.

The reason his course – Vineland Golf Club on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass – went this route was because there is only one single source aquifer on the island. While they felt they could “virtually guarantee the safety of the groundwater – 100% was not possible – and that was the standard required to approve the club. So they went organic. The article talks a lot about the trial and error that is still going on in order to maintain the organic commitment but also to keep a good healthy course.

“Our mantra is, we strive for excellent playability, but that doesn’t necessarily mean visual perfection”

Jeff talks about a few of the progressive techniques like using nematodes to deal with grubs – and mentioned that they get a lot of things to trial because of their unique position in the golf community. He provides us with a positive outlook for the future mentioning how many companies are bringing organic products to the table to be ahead of the curve and to be ready for the foreseeable future – I was excited by that comment.

The key he has found is cultural practices - and so did Dr Grant’s study too. He mentions all the techniques they had to develop to limit leaf wetness to deal with problems of fungus. This even includes the old fashioned technique of whisking the dew from the greens. He mentions that fungus has been his biggest battle for the last 6 years.

“When I started, it was the fungal diseases that were the most problematic. With our cultural practices and the organic fungicides that we use, the disease severity is a lot less than it was. We also think – not proven, total anecdotal – that there is some natural selection going on. We think the grasses are starting to adapt. It’s survival of the fittest – disease-resistant grasses occurring naturally.”

He mentions that weeds are still a problem and laments that if he could only use a couple of pre-emergent applications that issue would be gone. He mentions that there really isn’t an organic solution to this problem and ends up talking about a machine that literally applies boiling foam in a concentrated spot spray to kill the plant. The one thing that this points out about going organic is techniques like this – or hand picking which they have to do too - are very labour intensive compared to spraying applications.

I find it fascinating when he points out most women members get the idea and support the idea of organic golf maintenance. You have to wonder if the maleness of golf is actually a hindrance to getting on with doing the right things. Jeff feels that golfers must become willing to accept something a little less perfect looking – that still plays great – to make a move to a practice that is obviously healthier for us all. As he says if we use less, it has to be healthier for everyone. Jeff mentions that superintendents would go more organic if they knew their jobs were not linked to the current level of perfection. The level of expectation is extraordinary now and the organic movement is up against those expectations. One large issue that most superintendents bring up is the fear of losing their jobs because organic golf will not meet member’s expectations. As Jeff points out – they would be more organic already if they had some assurances.

I admire Jeff for taking this challenge and excelling – he is an inspiration for everyone. I think there is a little context needed to understand that his circumstance plays a role in this too. This course is built on sand (excellent drainage), that has a clean water source (no complications of salt), it has a moderating maritime climate (this tends to suppress disease pressure), the grasses are new (selected for the situation and are still fairly pure), this is a high end club with a decent budget, and the golfers have no choice but to accept the conditions that he can present in the circumstance.

This is not said to belittle his accomplishments – which are extraordinary. This is also not said to make it sound impossible when faced with less budget and a tough site. We must have an understanding about how tough certain sites will be and realize that we either have to improve the situation (new grasses, drainage, remove trees) or have slightly lower expectation on tough sites during extreme stress. We’ll all be better off for the change of attitude.

I’ll let Jeff finish with a great final point that could make all the difference.

“Unless golfers begin to have a change or perception and begin to accept those blemishes, and has that same mentality as when he goes to St. Andrews or Hoylake, and accepts those conditions and finds them charming and has a great round of golf. Then you can do it. The professionals and the tours and golf’s hierarchy have to embrace that, too. The guys who are driving the bus.”

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 4 of 5

“The Activist” Jay Feldman

Jay believes that the use of pesticides in golf is not safe.

He begins by pointing out that pesticide use poses health risks to anyone who comes in contact with them. He goes on to explain the links of pesticide use to hormonal imbalances which place all of us at greater risk to other greater complications like cancer (there has been a speculated link for quite some time). He brings and interesting point up about the idea of combinations of chemicals and even with medications causing us to be at a much greater risk than we realize. If you think about the issue of prescriptions and how pharmacists take so much care to know the other things you are taking to avoid a dangerous reaction between two prescriptions – you can see the potential of what he is pointing out. His feeling is that because pesticide use does get outside the intended target zones at times we are in risk when we often don’t realize (and without any warning to the risk we face).

The most interesting part of his piece is he truly believes that the risk assessment process is flawed. He feels the EPA is often in a position where they never truly understand the risk posed by the pesticide until after the product is in use and that is only through complications through its use do they finally understand the risk.

“So here we are in a realm of having newer and newer chemicals, and as new studies come out, we realize that we’ve introduced new levels of danger, new complexities, and a whole host of effects that the EPA isn’t even looking for.”

Jay believes that if we could simply remove the pesticides from day to day use, we could eliminate the risk. He comes from the viewpoint that public safety supersedes any benefit that products may pose. He believes strongly that organic practices are the way to go and points out the emergence and success of organic farming. He also believes that the agencies have not strong enough and would like to see the golfing public step in and take control over the issue. If educated, they would choose to reduce their exposure by simply saying this is not acceptable.

“Until we get the golfers themselves to engage on this issue, we cannot expect the right thing to happen.”
















“The Environmentalist” Brent Blackwater

Brent established the Golf and Environmental Initiative to try and influence the principles used to maintain golf courses as well as have an impact on where those courses should be built. Unlike many lobbyists, he sees new golf courses being built and contributing to the environment. He sees them being important sources of rehabilitation and reclamations. Where he really deviates from the norm is he has no issue with them being built over a former farm. He sees one of the main key points being the treatment of the non-use section of a course where native species can either be protected or introduced making for a better ecosystem within the property.

His issue comes from losing biodiversity, he feels there are places that golf should simply not go (and for the record I agree), anything that reduces important habitat or compromises water quality is unacceptable.

“An adult male with a large body weight might not be that susceptible, for youths and women of child bearing age, exposure to chemical in even very small amounts at the wrong time can do awful things”

While Brent expresses his concern about the potential link between pesticide use and cancer, he also comes across a little more moderate and doesn’t see a need to ban pesticides like Jay, but instead feels the “realistic” answer is Integrated Pest Management. The idea that you don’t automatically spray, but first identify the source of your problems, understand the reasons and spray sparingly if you need to as a last resort. He still feels that golf needs to go organic as it can and points out to the success in organic food to prove that it is possible to change successfully.

He was asked what golf in a perfect world would be like.

“You would be playing on an organic course. The maintenance equipment would be charged by solar power. Recycled water would be used for irrigation, and used efficiently and sparingly. There’d be a greater variety of wildlife habitats.”

To Part 5

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 3 of 5

“The Golf Course Architect” Michael Hurdzan

“Opponents of golf believe it’s an unnatural environment, and that we use too much water, fertilizer, pesticides and fossil fuels to maintain plant material in an unnatural state.”

Mike goes on to defend golf as being under attack because it is a symbol of development but I’m not sure that’s true anymore. I don’t think we’re seen as gobbling up land as much as people fear golf being a detriment to the environment. Mike later on agrees with the criticism of golf using too much water. When faced with the solution to the problem of water use he points to the development of new types of turfgrass that can survive less water or thrive in grey water. I can see his point when he goes on to mention Seashore Palspalum - but we really don’t have a new grass that accomplishes this in cool season grasses and many of the latest grasses require higher maintenance.

“We’re going to keep developing better grasses that require less water, pesticide, fertilizer – that’s the trend”

He talk a lot about the complications of approvals and points out that often people use misinformation about what golf courses do - and get away with it - because most people at hearings don’t have the scientific background to realize that many claims of golf courses being a risk to the environment is simply scare tactics used by the environmentalists to stop development. When pressed about the pesticide use Mike makes the analogy about there being a fine line between medicine and poison and that careful application is the key to safety.

Mike one interesting angle is when he talks about the golf course as a positive form, citing recreational space and the role it has taken in reclaiming sites. Mike’s Widow’s Walk project is mentioned in the article and certainly represents everything that golf can do to transform a lost site. He does a good job trying to on one hand defend golf and on the other still acknowledge the problems we all face. The only time he loses me when he suggests GPS mowers without operators are in our future too.

“The Grass Expert” James Snow

When asked if we could go British Style (my question to superintendents all winter as I researched) he simply answered that its not possible because the British Isles have the climate that is conducive to growing turfgrass and we don’t. He continues on with a detailed list of nasty pests and weeds that the US course will almost certainly face and that the typical UK course never needs to fear.

“In the UK the problems are minor. They have the right climate, they don’t have the problems we have with weed, with insects, with disease, and they don’t even have to irrigate their fairways.”

The other assertion he makes is that the American golfer is not yet ready for that change. He mentions if they don’t get what they want they are not going to buy it. That the culture remains that once the conditions improve, the reaction is to ask for even more improvement. The problem - of course - has lead to us to a point where turf is being pushed to the edge and any desired reduction in inputs will certainly take its toll on the turf and also the stability of a superintendent’s position. James is a remarkable reality check to people like me clamoring for change – now – telling us to understand that the golfers will resist this harshly and won’t lower their expectations.

When confronted with the pesticide issue James is blunt.

“Well you’d rather not have any if you had a choice, but your not going to have a golf course if you don’t use some.”

He goes on to talk about limited use and many other aspects of studies similar to Dr. Grant’s work. I would suggest you go to my “Future of Golf in Canada” series if you need further information on the realities of trying to go without pesticides on a typical parkland course. Here is the one on pesticides: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2008/03/future-of-golf-course-architecture-in_11.html

One of the more interesting aspects of Jim’s interview is his stance on water. He agrees with smarter use, more effluent water, better grasses etc – but at the same time points out golf is a 65 billion dollar industry and should be treated like all other industries that require water to survive. You can’t ask golf to cut drastically like they did in Georgia recently (10% of normal use!) and not ask Coca Cola to do the same. He says that the visibility of what they do makes them standout when other industries use a great deal of water too - and need to also share the reductions. He points out that water will clearly be the key issue going forward and uses the declining aquifer in Las Vegas as a great example. He says the loss of golf is inconsequential compared to the eventual need to relocate people as the aquifer dries up.

Milton, outside Toronto froze growth until they finally arranged a water connection to Lake Ontario so that they would not put undue pressure on their aquifer. I’m surprised that Palm Springs, Vegas, and Phoenix haven’t had development frozen if the statistics are true about the declining resource in each community.

To Part 4

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 2 of 5

change your expectations









The Remarks of John Barton

“Golf in America will face a crisis over water. There simply won’t be enough to go around for golf courses to continue to do what they have been doing.”

I have often heard water being called the “new oil” and that some even feel that more wars will be started over water than any other factor in the future. The use of water in semi-arid and arid conditions particularly in the south west of the United States is something that is incomprehensible in the long run. I agree with his assertion that golf may be forced to disappear in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix if those cities continue to rapidly expand while the source of water continues to deplete. Water will simply be too expensive – socially and economically – for golf to exist in the long, long term.





remember that kids play and they are at greater risk





“Can we be sure that the chemicals aren’t harmful?”

One of the great observations brought up in this article is how often that a product was approved by the EPA and then requiring banning after collected evidence proved that a product carried a harmful side effect. I did all the spraying of my parents apple orchard for quite a few years as a teenager and I know what instructions on the bags said and it was enough for me to don the space suit every time out. While we know that today’s chemicals carry a lower toxicity, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are safe or more importantly fully understood yet.

His summary contains a wonderful paragraph that describes where we seem to be headed if this movement truly takes hold – and to be honest I like it.

"As water management becomes scarcer, as organic management practices increase, as environmentalism and environmental legislation start to bite more than they have, as the economy struggles, and as we come to appreciate the aesthetics of golf courses in all their many natural beautiful hues, the way the game looks will change. And the way it plays will change too, with firmer and faster turf demanding a return to shot-making, creativity, the bump and run.”

If you remember my “Future of Golf In Canada” series – you will see that I also drew a similar conclusion after spending almost two months on this subject before writing for the week. The series is here: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2008/03/future-of-golf-course-architecture-in.html We will be eventually legislated down this road, we will need to change our expectations on what our courses look like and we end up with courses that play a little different than the typical American Parkland layout.

The Sidebars




walk always








“A Call to Action – What You can Do?”

The sidebar touches on all the key points: get involved, support the golf superintendent through this change, make the personal decisions that have an impact like walking, change your mind about what good conditioning means, and make the changes at home to follow through at all levels of your life. Nothing earth shattering but a good list for someone who is new to this issue. I think the key factor here is if you believe in lower the clubs impact, you must also be vocal and supportive to the superintendent by changing people’s expectations. All the superintendents I know like the idea but fear losing their jobs because the expectations don’t change in the membership. If you want change – you must support them through what will be a very tough time.

“Golf Digest Changes its Views on Conditioning”

This simply talks about the fact that rankings have changed how the raters should rate the conditions of the course. The methodology has been changed to reflect the new approach promoted in this piece. I think the editors are noble – but I’m not as convinced that the rankers will have the same view. Most are single digit handicaps who got that way by caring a great deal about the score they shoot – a bad bounce or bad lie will effect what they think of a course – at least that has been my experience with them.



Could Seminole disappear?






“Global Warming”

This sidebar talks about how many coastal courses are at risk if the seas rise due to global warming. If someone has proof that the seas are in fact rising please send it through to me. I believe in the principle of reducing our impact hole-heartedly but I have yet to see a definitive proof of this phenomenon that is not based upon a model rather than measurements. If it is true, the notion of losing at least part of courses like Fishers Island, Seminole and the TPC at Sawgrass is depressing.

To Part 3

A Discussion of “How Green is Golf?” by John Barton – Part 1

I was in the airport and had a quick scan in the book store to see what was in the current of Golf Digest issue beyond instruction - and the front cover said, “Plus - The Most Important Article We’ve Ever Published - page 196.” I opened it up to see what this article was about and read the title “How Green is Golf?” I didn’t need to read any of it and simply walked to the counter and paid my money to buy the article – they threw in the magazine. This was the first issue of Golf Digest that I have bought in a lot of years – and I’ll buy lots more if they give me one article a month as good as this.

John Barton opens his article with a mention of the first Golf and the Environment conference in 1995 and allows that to become the opening. It gives the impression that the movement is new but actually it has greater roots than that – but most don’t realize that the Golf Superintendents have as an industry been trying to become leaders in this area for quite some time. They often take a beating in this article – but I can tell you through personal experience that the leaders in the industry are well out in front on this issue. The difference now of course is that the subject of golf and the environmental impact has become a political hot button for non-golfers. The Golf Industry finds itself under enormous pressure.

This is an excellent article - and I think you should go out and buy the magazine and read this article.

Where it works best is the fact that John takes seven completely different people from all sides of the issue and gives them a voice. He begins with “The Golf Course Architect” Michael Hurdzan to speak for the architects but ends up speaking on behalf of the golf industry. He then turns “The Activist” Jay Feldman to talk mainly about the inherent risk of pesticides but also talks about some common misconceptions – some of this is either eye-opening or controversial – but well worth the read to understand where certain opinions stem from. The one I enjoyed the most was “The Golf Course Superintendent” Jeff Carlson who runs the only truly organic golf course in the United States. This section will inform you a great deal about what the environmentalists and public seem to want and what it means to you as a golfer.

“The Regulator” with Robert Wood seemed a little out of place with the others and deals mainly with his role in protecting wetlands. “The Advocate” with Ronald Dodson of Audoban International was one I looked forward to since he has played such a large role in getting the environmental movement going with-in golf, but strangely John seems more interested in following the controversy over the name Audoban than the actual role of the organization. This is an opportunity clearly lost. Everybody likes the goal of the organization, but I think John’s note about cost ($9,500 for new development) does explain some people’s questions about the money involved.













“The Grass Expert” James Snow is an interesting contrast useful to explain where the problems will come for golf in trying to go organic. His explanation about why the US can’t adopt the UK style because of climate is fascinating. Finally John concludes with the perfect choice with “The Environmentalist” Brent Blackwater. Imagine a lobbyist for Friends of the Earth who is also a single digit handicap golfer – nothing better than understanding the issues from both sides. He certainly makes a strong case for change - but also makes it very clear that golf has a place. He simply feels that we can be much better environmentally as an industry – and so do many people working in the industry.

Environmentalism in golf isn’t going to go away – this is just the early stages of what will be the most remarkable change the game has seen since the introduction of the Haskell Ball.

I’ll begin tomorrow by touching on each person’s comments – except Robert Wood and Ronald Dodson because I see no point - and discuss what they had to say. I’ll also touch on the sidebars which deserve some minor comment too.

To Part 2

Golf is – sort of - Exempt

"Ontario's proposed ban on the sale and cosmetic use of pesticides will be the toughest such legislation in North America once it becomes law next year, supporters said Tuesday."

The full article from CBC.ca is found here:
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/national/080422/n042295A.html

Ontario's ban will likely take effect next spring, but there will be a few exceptions, McGuinty said. Pesticides will still be allowed for use in farming, forestry or health and safety, such as controlling mosquitoes that can carry diseases like the West Nile virus.

(I edited this with the actual statement made in the legislature)

An exception will also be made for golf courses; however, that exception would only be given if golf courses comply with the requirements set out in regulations that would be made if the legislation is enacted, through integrated pest management programs.

The golf courses will be legislated to participate in the Integrated Pest Management Program (IPM) run by the University of Guelph. If that is the case – this is a great solution. The problem is this is government – which is still susceptable to further lobbying before becoming legislation - and the ambiguous nature of this statement leaves you with doubt.

The other issue is Golf Courses may be exempt – but there is no guarantees that the pesticides they use today will be available come next year - they are two sepperate issues. This is a long way from being over – but at least golf is recognized as an industry that can not be immediately legislated to go pesticide free.

I think reducing the use of pesticides is very important to all of us. But I fear the lobbist don't fully understand the implications of eliminating pesticides. For example, my family ran an apple orchard for a few years. If you don't spray on a regular basis, you get apple scab. In my opinion apple scab does nothing to the quality of the fruit or the taste - but people won't buy an apple with scab because it doesn't look right.

I think we need to make sure we understand what we are doing rather than making a purely emotional decision.

Ontario to Ban Pesticides

Snow Mold

“Ontario's Liberal government will introduce legislation tomorrow to implement a province wide ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides, keeping one of their key election promises from last year.”

The article from The Star: http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/416766

The province wide ban is aimed at replacing a patchwork of local pesticide bylaws, but Ontario farmers will be exempt. There's no word yet if the province also plans to exempt golf courses from the ban.

I want to repeat this part: “There's no word yet if the province also plans to exempt golf courses from the ban.”

My understanding is the golf courses will be exempt – that’s always been assumed and discussed - but reading this line and knowing the implications scares the hell out of all of us in golf industry. For perspective: Pesticide is a blanket name for herbicide, insecticide and fungicide. In a presentation by Doctor Grant from Cornell this winter – where she talked about the idea of reducing or eliminating pesticides - she said that North-Eastern golf courses don’t stand a chance against snow mold if there is not available product used to protect the turf through the winter. While there was a whole host of ways that we would end up with dead turf, the simplest being snow mold, may become the most devastating if we are not allowed minimal treatment.

"We always said it was a priority when we came out with our platform last year, and it's had tremendous support around the province from what we've received as far as the environmental registry is concerned," Gerretsen said. "Ninety per cent of the people that responded to it responded in a favourable way."

The article talks about a 90% support – but the question comes do even 90% understand the implications of making this a reality. This is where everyone in the field is frustrated – since farming will continue to be exempt when potentially golf is not. So its OK to spray the food that we eat, but not the grass that we walk on – in shoes.

As one superintendent said to me recently – even if we are exempt now – doesn’t mean we should expect to be exempt in 10 years. The lobby has just had one a huge victory – and this will encourage them on towards achieving their eventual goal of a complete ban on all pesticides.

If your a golfer and your not worried - you should be!

The Opener inspired by Pine Valley

click play twice

The missing line would likely have been: By leaving the front wide open players can play a bounce in approach or intentionally play short to remove all the trouble. If you want to make a birdie you have to take the risk of going long.

This was a bit of an experiment, but I liked it enough to keep it as is - despite the shakey nature and the last couple of seconds are missing.

My influence - the opener at Pine Valley.

I've used a similar approach to the opener as Pine Valley:

1. Lots off room off the tee for a comfortable opener
2. A short route where you can cut the corner with an aggressive play, but pay the consequences if you miss the shot.
3. The approach to the green is wide open and on grade allowing a passive running approach.
4. The more aggressive you get the narrower the green becomes and the green falls away on all three sides clearly influenced by the opening green at Pine Valley.
I always thought that was the best opener in golf and have gladly lifted many of the ideas to open this particular course.

The Future of Golf Architecture in Canada – Part 6 -

Prairie Dunes

If we begin thinking from the outset that nature will need to be part of our designs and strategies, we open ourselves to touch less of the site, leaving more of the natural features and leave less maintained area. We will start to the blur the line between the natural surroundings and the golf course - like Prairie Dunes does. This will give our courses a greater sense of place - separating it from the typical modern looking course - making the course unique. In turn these courses will become cheaper to build by minimizing earthmoving, reducing the stripping of topsoil, and getting back to more seeding and less sod. We will be building courses that are a more realistic economic model that will allow them to open with lower greens fees and let then the market dictate price. If the course finds it can charge more than the business model, the profits become much greater and the businesses becomes even more of a success.

Old Sandwich

Since our playing fields will get less input – the courses will play firm and fast – so we will need to design courses to accommodate that style of play. The fairways will need more width to accommodate the run in the ball. This will place more emphasis on the rumples and rolls in the land since the ball will bound more. This allows designers to make greater use of the undulation to dictate strategy and reduce the modern reliance on bunkering to dictate strategy. The small rumples and undulations around the greens will become far more important particularly if kept short. This will open up far more options to putt, bump and run or flop around the greens. This helps the average player play to their strengths, but hurts the good player who has to choose between all the options opening the possibility of a poor decision. These courses will need to feature far more greens on grade and be more open in front to allow running approaches. Since the ground is now part of play, the player has the option to either use the land or play a conventional approach to the green which knowing it is more firm and harder to stop a ball on. Either way they need to have both options available in a firm and fast environment.

Barndougle Dunes

Our designs are going to have to have extensive water collection systems and large storage facilities from the outset. Our goal – even if not a requirement – should be close to self-reliance. The approach of collecting everything and distributing it back to the irrigation system will become common practice. That will also allow us to control what leaves the site and prevent any residue from escaping the property. The use of natural filtering for any water collected or more importantly any water leaving the site will help ensure that treatments don’t exit the property. I also see a lot more tree removal to provide far more open green sites – and even those sites can’t have ridges or hills that block the sun – otherwise the low input idea will not work. I think the real future of low input golf is with the turfgrass research industry. They are the ones that will make the greatest stride. Velvet Bent has had very mixed results - but there is no question about the environmental benefits of Velvet. It’s finding the right grasses to do the job.

Thinking outside the box – nothing could be more beneficial than a return to walking courses. Imagine not requiring cart paths, carts and cart storage facilities – that would save a million dollars or more. Think of the benefits to the environment when you think on the big picture. Of course designers will need to return to building walking courses – which would be a great idea since Cart courses generally suck.

Bandon Trails

We all need to change our ideas about what we think is Canadian golf is and realize there are better ways to be more environmentally responsible without compromising the quality of the game. We need to realize that our current state of golf is not sustainable and that a new approach to golf course design and maintenance will be good for all of us in the long term.

The Future of Golf Architecture in Canada – Part 5 - British Style Maintenance

St. Andrew's

Eventually Canadian golf will be forced to accept "brown" through changes in legislation, why not do something about it now.

At the Calgary Golf Course Superintendents Conference I was able to ask a number of superintendents about the possibility of going to a British style approach to maintenance - which meant fewer inputs, lower fertility and less water – with a new course. Most loved the idea until I asked about existing courses. The certain saw the benefits and would like to do it but many feared the membership’s reaction the first time the turf went a little brown.

Crystal Down 5th

In reading a recent article by Mike Miller – superintendent of Crystal Downs – He outlined the process and timelines it would take to have a more British approach to turf at Crystal Downs. His feelings were that without re-seeding it would take 10 years to change the turf to accept lower water demand and reduce the need for inputs. The article can be found here: http://www.gcsaa.org/gcm/2008/feb/feature6.asp

Brora's 6th - no fairway irrigation

It will be hard for existing courses to convert, but it is a lot easier to plan for it with new designs since there is no existing turf to convert and we start with a blank slate. Why wouldn’t we create a new course ready for a different approach to maintenance and get ahead of the curve.

The only way to make this goal realistic is to provide ideal growing conditions. The reason that British courses require so little input is that they are generally out in the open and on sandy soils. When greens receive full sun they are able to use photosynthesis to make lots of food which makes them less likely to be susceptible to disease and pests. This tells us that if architects want to help make this change in maintenance styles we will need to spend time finding green sites that are excellent places to grow turf. We need to make sure the site is well drained and take down enough trees. This is where we need the authorities to recognize the goal. Since trees are the greatest threat to healthy turf, clearings around greens need to be wide. The authorities will have to support more tree removal on new projects – understanding this is for the greater good.

Alwoody - how we will eventually look

Canadians will need to change their current expectations of wall to wall green because is not sustainable. They will have to understand that turf can be green or brown and still be healthy.

To Part 6

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part 4 - The Issue of Water

Twenty years ago, the number one question was do you have enough money to build a golf course. Ten years later it became is there enough land left after the environmentally sensitive areas are delineated. The most common question now is do you have a reliable source of water.

To give you some perspective, Calgary is awash with money but the Bow River in Calgary has no water licenses available. It’s not hard to understand why there has only been limited building of new courses throughout the Bow Valley despite the need for golf. Here in Ontario it gets harder each year to get water taking permits. In a candid conversation with a member of one of the Conservation Authorities I was told, “We have water issues – golf courses and farmers are seen as big users. Right now it’s more politically popular to get golf courses to cut their usage first – once that’s done we’ll go after the farmers.” The Ministry on the Environment has often hinted that they may stop issuing permits for wells for golf courses. Water is the number one issue in golf.

The 10th at Copper Creek with main irrigaton pond

Most new courses have been built to minimize the impact of their water taking. They can only use the excess water from the river they’re on during peak flow periods – the rest of the flow is unavailable for use. What that means is taking water from rivers and streams only takes place during spring run and the occasional storm large enough to exceed certain volumes. The golf courses have had to build massive storage ponds that they fill when water becomes available and then supplement that with whatever run-off they can collect. Existing courses are now being asked to work off the same system and those that don’t probably will down the road.

But what about Grey Water you ask. While the available resource is enticing for everyone involved you also have to consider that Grey Water is essentially the water left over from washing dishes, clothes and taking showers. It’s an interesting source unless the levels of soap or salt are high and then it weakens turfgrass with repeated use. Imagine that the more you use the thirstier the plant will become until you get natural rain – add in the fact that salts take up nutrients and you can see why turf can easily decline in this environment. There are more than a few famous Canadian courses with “bad” water where the turf is always under stress – and so is the superintendent.

The 1st at Copper Creek and the massive storage pond

So getting to the future - I think it’s reasonable to look forward and see a future where a new course must supply all its own irrigation through the collection of rainwater and snow melt. We have an example with Copper Creek which can store around 20 million gallons. The drainage network collects 75% of the water that falls onto the site and channels it into the storage ponds. The water is moved around using a combination of pipes and pumps mainly to avoid large fluctuations in the ponds. Supplementing is limited to high peak flows on the Humber but I’m quite convinced they could survive without it although the ponds would likely look a bit empty at times.

To Part 5

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part 3 - Economics

The photo is of Sagebrush in BC

taken by Jeff Mingay








The last two entries talked about environmental issues – which I’m sure I’ll return to before this series is up – but today I wanted to touch on other issues that will have a huge impact on future golf developments. I’m going to continue to talk about a series of related subjects for about a week and then pull them all together with what I think is a realistic solution. Golf is going to change – the question is no longer if – its how much.

The Economic Model Doesn’t Work

Golf has clearly entered a period of stagnation that began at the turn of the century with a noticeable decline in participation. The price to play golf had turned players away for the first time in decades. All the while developers continued to over-build a market that was in decline, creating enormous price pressure particularly with the new higher end courses. The problem stems from too much ego getting involved in the developments with each mega project attempting to one up the previous course in order to draw attention away. The result is that each business model became more unrealistic than the last – people seemed to have forgotten that this is still a business where revenue must outpace expenses.

Study after study has reached the same conclusion. The game has become too expensive, takes too much time and in many cases is too difficult for the average person – and until the game becomes more inclusive of different skill levels, socio-economic groups and does not involve a whole day - the game will struggle. This doesn’t mean and end to new projects – far from it - but they will have to be better businesses in the future. They will need to be built for less, require less maintenance, and be inclusive of all levels of players.





shape only tees, greens and bunkers








Golf designers will need to show some restraint. In particular they need to avoid the development of what I would call Extreme Golf. It makes for great photos and lousy playing experiences. Just because we have the equipment and skills to build in even the most extreme places – it still doesn’t mean we should. The amount of earthmoving required, the potential for environmental damage, the shear cost, the difficulties for grow in and the development of cart only golf courses is not healthy for the game.

The economics and designs will improve if we choose to disturb less of what’s there. We don’t need to strip an entire site of topsoil, reshape the site to suit or image of a golf hole and then put it all back together. By finding the holes that nature has left and accepting some of the quirks as part of the design – we can become less intrusive – and a little more creative as designers. This will also leave much more of the topsoil in place, reduce disturbance amd create a cheaper build.

To Part 4

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part Two - Pesticides

Lossiemouth

“Reduce & Eliminate the Use of Pesticides?” – Jennifer Grant

This was the lecture I wanted to see. Could we maintain a course with no pesticides? Was it still possible to provide acceptable playing conditions after legislation that forced golf to turn to little or no inputs? Could we turn back to a more UK style of maintenance? After all, my lecture two days later talked openly about the possibility of contending with this circumstance as part of the potential vision of the future.

Dr. Grant talked about Cornel’s experimental program going on at the Green Course at Bethpage State Park. They had been a running experiment for around six years with the goal of find out what effects different cultural practices, levels of input, and the use of chemicals had on turfgrass. They also wanted to investigate the use of biological controls and alternative approaches to see what sort of impact they could have on turfgrass and whether there were alternative approaches that work. Their focus was also on testing solutions that were more environmentally responsible right up against common cultural practices.

The Old Course

The 18 greens were divided into six groups and each was put under different regimes to see how they react. One of the test groups were given no pesticide and herbicide, the next set were maintained under the Integrated Pest Management and the last group allowed anything the superintendent wanted to use. Each group was then divided to break out different practices under each scenario.

While environmentalists and politicians may want to completely ban the use of pesticides and herbicides – the answer was swift. At Bethpage it proved impossible since dollar spot alone was enough to wipe out the greens. The study quickly concluded that no cultural practice was capable of dealing with the threat and even if they managed to avoid the snow mold or dollar spot another disease like Pythium was always there to finish them off. The greens need some applications to survive.

But what became interesting was they quickly found out that “light” chemical use was almost as successful as an unlimited use of chemicals. When you added in particular cultural practices and the use of organics to control the disease and pest pressures on turf and the conclusions were fascinating. What they learned was by selecting certain “lower toxicity” products and limiting the spraying to a minimum and increasing certain cultural practices they could meet green expectations of around 9 feet and take the environmental impact down up to 90% from the unlimited approach. While no input is impossible, minimal input is not. It’s complicated at times, requires additional maintenance, a little more expense – but possible!

There are two key things that designers and regulators must read into this study to see this become the standard to which we all should strive. They must recognize the old problems are still problems and become bigger problems since the superintendent has half there tools removed from the box. We need to head down this path BUT we need to ensure the growing environment is ideal to allow for the production of carbohydrates the key to making sure the plant is as strong as possible and is more resistant to disease.

Alwoody

One interesting note was when the golf courses began to brown a little through reduced input, the tested the quality of the roll of the ball roll and found it just as consistent in that low input environment. In other words they may not have looked as “nice” (ie. green) but they played exactly the same. I think if anyone really wants to address this whole issue correctly – the answer to reducing is follow their example of lower inputs and better environmental choices when they need a produce. The mantra of reducing “toxicity risk” is a great one. Toxicity risk looks at the opportunity for the chemical to migrate, the risk of contact, the strength of the product and places a value that needs to be multiplied by the application rate. It values the overall impact to the environment and helps us make the best decisions for the ecosystem rather than a blanket decision.

To Part 3