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

The Future of Golf Course Architecture in Canada – Part One - The Enviornment

Photo courtesy of Brian Ewan

“We have a duty to minimize our imprint on the environment”

I plan on talking for at least a week about the environment and golf. I set out to give a lecture on the future of golf course architecture and found myself openly questioning the way things are done in both design and maintenance of new golf courses. This journey began a few weeks back with my learning that Ontario would head towards a ban of pesticides - while golf courses are expected to have an initial exemption - they are likely facing a long term ban. I knew right away that maintenance practices in Canada are going to have to change and so were the designs. Once you add the issues of water restrictions and the ever-increasing costs to build and maintain it makes it so clear that the golf course industry will undergo a transition and be forced to become even more environmentally responsible (most are better stewards than people realize). I knew that my design work was going to have to reflect what is to come – and place my new courses in the best position to cope with the future - rather to foolishly build to today’s environmental standards and leave the courses struggling to deal with each change in legislation.

Last week I attended the Canadian Golf Superintendents Conference in Calgary. I went to lectures on turf, fairway renovation, dealing with trees, soils, foliar fertilization (my brain hurt afterwards), eliminating pesticides (tomorrow’s discussion), the European Environmental Movement, and even rating courses with Bob Weeks. I also saw lectures by well know superintendents reflecting on the changes in their business and attended a panel discussion with an open mike for questions. I was able to seek out and ask many great superintendents from all over the country about the changes they face with the environment and what is possible. I went there with the goal of finding out if Canadian Superintendents believed that a reduced input program is possible taking our turf closer to a UK model in order to be more environmentally responsible.

One of my lectures included Ken Seims from Loch Lomond talking about the Environmental Movement in Europe and for the first time I was able to see how an existing course could become a better steward of the land. It was an eye-opening lecture on all the possibilities outside of the playing areas and what we could accomplish if we looked at the property as a whole – including all the buildings. I didn’t get exactly what I sought but I did get a window into what it would require. One of the keys that Ken stressed was drainage since it was the key to better choices on turf selection which is one cultural key to reduce inputs to turf. Another lecture talked about the fact that sunlight and the production of carbohydrates in the plant is the key to avoiding disease pressure and that airflow is not near as big a factor.






Jack's Point NZ









One fascinating part of asking a lot of questions is what you learn by accident. I was tipped off by another superintendent to ask Dr. Loyns about the potential of golf courses as a carbon sinks. He said that a study at the University of Colarado confirmed that golf courses are 50% better as carbon sinks than natural grasslands. Can it be possible that the future will have golf course could selling carbon credits?

To Part 2 – can we eliminate pesticides and herbicides?

More Jericho!

Courtesy of Robert Thompson - From Backspin, a history of BC golf:

Article on Lost Courses - June 2005 - Golf Canada

This article was written in 2005 with Robert Thompson. It was inspired by Daniel Wexler's awesome book Missing Links and chronicles a few significant losses from across Canada. I hope you enjoy the read:

click on each picture to enlarge and read

Computer Aided Design

“The design process remains unchanged by technology. It is the rest of the process that has gained speed and efficiency through the use of computers.”

That was my quote used in an article by fellow golf architect Mike Nuzzo about using technology in Golf Course Design. It came from a discussion about Autocadd and technology in the golf profession.

Not every firm uses Autocadd, in fact a few still hand draw plans, but they should be. Working on Microstation or Autocadd offers no aid to the design of holes, but the side benefits easily make the conversion worth the while. When I was working for the former employer we changed from hand drawn plans to Computer Aided Design. The choice was Microstation since the platform was clearly in front of Autocadd at that time - but Autocadd would likely be the choice now. I spent a difficult 6 months putting together two sets of working drawings -which forced me to be proficient using the software. I spent the next five years exploring the limits of the software and benefiting from the faster and faster production of working drawings. The process of getting grading from trace to grading plans was originally about the same as drawing by hand, but it was 10 times faster making changes, creating the secondary working drawings and adding outside information since it was drawn on the same file.

It would be fair to say within a year I was 50% more productive and we avoided hiring another employer for a few three years just through this new efficiency. The big gain was the ability to share information with other consultants – and once we did the first golf course community we knew that it was making co-ordination far easier. There are those who say all design should be done in the field – that’s fine until you have sanitary and storm water pipes running through golf holes - that’s something you can’t do on the fly.

Once you become comfortable with CAD you begin to find the secondary benefits from software including quick and easy cut and fills, the ability to generate earthmoving profiles, the use of models to explain ideas, the ability to section out information so that nothing is drawn twice, the ability to make changes to every drawing simultaneously through reference files, etc etc.

I have so much time with computers that I can route a course and design holes right on the computer because I don’t find the medium restrictive. I prefer to route and design on sketch because there is something far more pleasing about doing this by hand.

The more you have time to explore the possibilities in technology – the more you see the possibilities for efficiency. For example I used to hand draw before and after images often taking a week to produce a full set – then I was introduced to Corel Photoshop and in one day I knew I would not draw by hand again. I can do better images in far less time by altering photos. But not every experiment works out – I bought a digital voice data recorder with the idea of recording my thoughts instead of writing them as I go. The software I bought was supposed to convert this into text, but the number of mistakes made it too time consuming to fix and instead I listen to the recording and type out the report – although that still saves me time.

“What has not changed in the past decade or two is designers make lousy computer operators and computer operators make lousy designers” Mike Hurdzan – from his book Golf Course Architecture




before




after







I’ll never understand people’s need to criticize the use of technology, when in the end the quality of the golf course is what matters and has nothing to do with the tools you use. If technology can bring more efficiency and leave you more time for design and site supervision – why wouldn’t this be a huge benefit to an architect. But the technophobes will always disagree and say that any use of technology in design is wrong. I wonder if they also are against the use of a laser level on tees and greens too.

For a second article to read on this subject try Mike Nuzzo’s Golf Design Tools essay: http://www.mnuzzo.com/pdf/Design_Tools.pdf

Please Play the Shorter Tees

One of the best memories I have playing golf was at Royal Portrush. We caught a three to four club wind (even the pro thought it was rough day!) making for a very complicated day to play. Robert and Steve opted for the men’s tees (about 6,600 yards and change). I opted to play the member’s up at around 6,400 yards because the wind was blowing and I wanted to have some fun – and some flexibility in club selection due to the wind. The starter said your handicap allows you to play back – and I said we’re all better off if I play up today.

My father headed forward to the farthest tees up (around 5400 yards). The starter called out to my father and said, "excuse me sir but you’re heading for the ladies tee – you’re not supposed to play from there." My father said, "I’m 75, I have two artificial hips and two pins in my shoulders, I can not carry the ball more than 180 yards anymore on the best shot. I have found that I need to play those tees to make the carries into the wind possible – besides this way you’ll see me in under 3 ½ hours – and isn’t that more important."

He laughed and said “My apologies sir - your quite right to play up – I wish other visitors thought like you do.”

















People need to play the appropriate tees for their ability. Too often I’m faced with people wanting alteration to their golf course to deal with the fact that their game is eroding and certain holes are becoming too challenging. I remember at Oshawa the 15th involves a long carry from a raised tee over a sizable depression. One of the committee was adamant about grading out that fantastic depression and adding fairway. It wasn’t for the benefit of the course – it was because he could no longer make the carry and now felt the course was unfair. He refused to play the whites. I’m stunned at how many times the phrase unfair is uttered from a player who refuses to move up.

This article from the Wall Street Journal is all about playing the proper tees: http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120371508597486573-lMyQjAxMDI4MDIzMzcyMTM1Wj.html
















I love the suggestion from the article. “A couple of readers said courses should charge extra for playing from the back tees. Frank Thomas, the former U.S. Golf Association technical director, says -- in all seriousness -- that courses should give free post round beer to foursomes willing to play from up front. "They might end up selling more beer in the end, and probably [would] be able to squeeze in a few more foursomes per day, because of faster play," he said.

I’m sick of watching six handicaps who couldn’t beat me straight up (I’m a 14) playing from 7,200 -7,400 yards in order to “play the whole course.” Not only are they completely out of their element but they are going to become a certain source of slow play as they take lots of extra shots and look for golf balls throughout their round. I’m still not sure how they get enjoyment from having their hat handed to them every time they play.

I played up at Royal Portrush because it was a tough day and my skill set is limited not by length but by consistency. I needed some opportunity to get the driver out of my hands to help me manage the day. My father played up because he is limited not by his skill, but by the fact he can no longer generate any distance on his shots. I wish others saw the merits of playing at the correct distance for the day. If you get on a role and begin to score – then move back and see if you can continue. That was how I was taught to play as a junior – I earned each tee till I played well from the back – unfortunately I’ve regressed through negligence and I’ve moved my way forward till I score consistently – now if I could get some the seniors to do the same.

Is Golf Healthy in Canada?

I started to think about this subject after reading and article called More Americans are Giving Up Golf written by Paul Vitello. The link is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/nyregion/21golf.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
The article contains the usually gloomy statistics that make you sit up and take notice of it: “The industry now counts its core players as those who golf eight or more times a year. That number, too, has fallen, but more slowly: to 15 million in 2006 from 17.7 million in 2000, according to the National Golf Foundation. “

The article sites goes on to sight the typical factors that are hurting the participation levels:
1. The game taking too much time.
2. Roles in society have adjusted and men are expected to have the week-ends with the family
3. The costs of the game have risen to a point that golf is too expensive for many.

There was also a study from IPSOS Ried a few years back that indicated that unlike American Golf, the Canadian game was just fine – and I openly questioned the results and the polling methods – particularly since the RCGA paid for the study. The link to that article is here for your perspective: http://thecaddyshack.blogspot.com/2007/01/course-closures-outpace-openings-in.html


















So is it healthy? – well yes and no.

I started to think about private first. They are full of older members who were brought up with the golf memberships and country club social circles, but the new players are much harder to come by. The majority of new members seem to be corporate in nature where the game of golf is still important to conducting business. What they have trouble finding is the younger social player who is simply there to play golf. They have too many options and also there has been a massive change in society where the family comes first. After all most families now need two jobs just to afford a house! The successful private clubs, like an Oakdale in Toronto, are built around the entire family. I’m most curious to see how Coppinwood and Goodwood do in Toronto with their incredibly high initiation fees.

The High end Public market is largely saturated in most areas since too many projects were begun to be larger and flashier than the last but requiring a much more difficult business model to support them. Once there became too many of these courses to fill the niche, or the price point was cut by competition in the market place, an some of these clubs are incapable of operating under this financial structure – there was too much financed to work. Now the countdown begins on how long the person with deep pockets is going to underwrite the operation.


















The destination course or resort is the next one having a tough go right now – think about the effect of a 25% change in the dollar had one them. They desperately need the dollar to change and yet the same source of the currencies’ strength is the Oil Boom out west which has fueled the massive build out of real estate golf in British Columbia. I think these two saw off overall but certain regions like Niagara are getting killed in the economic environment. The other concern is the level of over-supply in certain areas out west as this boom takes place – it reminds me of both Ontario booms that ended up in the same place.

The public courses where the green fee is manageable and is in decent condition is great demand – in fact this will always be strong since this business model is fine from boom to recession.

The reality is “golf” is fine – the problem stems from too many bad business models built in the last 20 years and the market will have to shake this out before it can move forward again. Once the price for a round is reasonable the players will come – the only problem is someone will have to foot the bill until the model works or we will need a bankruptcy to bring in a new owner who borrowed less and is able to change a lower rate to make the business model feasible. That’s the real problem in golf – it seems everyone forgets that it’s a business too.

Here is Robert Thompson's take (which comments on the same article I do and then on another article about it by Garth Woolsey): http://www.ontgolf.ca/g4g/

Here is Garth Woolsey's from the Tronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/Sports/Golf/article/305899

Things I Learned about St. Andrew’s Yesterday

On Tuesday I saw Gordon McKie – head greenskeeper at St. Andrew’s - give a lecture regarding maintaining the Old Course. Today I'm off to Guelph to speak myself.

The Maintaining of St. Andrew's

The entire complex has 60 full time employees and grows by another 20 in the summer months. They tend to have anywhere from 20 to 25 interns at one time. It takes 19 people 3 hours to mow the entire Old Course in the morning beginning usually in the summer at 5:30am. He pointed out that it takes 6 people 3 hours to mow all the greens by hand. He mentioned that due to the excessively long lines you have to graduate to walking greens on the Old Course. He joked about the fact they have a state of the art 4000 head sprinkler system as “insurance” – but the reality is that almost all watering is done by hand.

For the Turf Heads out there: They only need to core harvest two small areas of the property – and one is the right side of 18 - in that case due to the buildings and winter shade problem. There is no need to amend the rest of the soils since they are pure sand. The course is regularly aerated and occasionally verticut with thatch being a minimal concern. He has been using the hydroject on the greens but also points out that the key still remains the heavy topdressing program – which is still sometimes done by hand!

One of the things they do is a lot of scarifying to remove dead turf in the fairways, followed by topdressing and over-seeding. He pointed out that he over-seeds the greens with a mixture of 50% chewings and 50% slender red fescue 5 times a year hoping to strengthen the diversity over time. He talked about 1% each time + 1% the next time slowly adds up. He regularly over-seeds the fairways with 30% red, 30% chewings, 30% strong creeping red and 10% browntop bent. He told us that the 1st tee and 3rd tee receive 30% perennial rye due to the excessive wear.

















There is a feeling at the Trust that the emergence of the metal iron and revetted bunkers occurred together. It is speculated that the new metal iron was the cause of damaged faces and the solution emerged to revett the faces to protect them. It was likely begun with the Hell bunker – since the first revetted bunker found in photo was the Hell bunker. The revetted bunkers tend to last around 4 or 5 years but the south facing ones last as little as two years – a problem we share. There are no burrowing animals on the old course due to a paid rabbit hunter and the aim of keeping everything very firm and dry. When the soils are damp or organic – they tend to get more burrowing.

They are currently experimenting with transplanting sea grass and Marram grass on the top of the bunkers in the rough to limit the drying out that seems to break down the tops. Although most get damaged at the base through play and begin to erode from the bottom up. He hates repairing the old course sod walls with anything but existing turf from on the course since all other sources are too organic and leading to new problems. There is a small nursery hidden between the holes – but it is very small and limits what he can do. The rest are done from a nursery two miles away – which has organics mixed in with the sand. A surprise to me was they also have enormous trouble with the wind relocating the sand on quite a few bunkers.

He stated that the course has not had any fungicide or pesticide applied to it for 17 years and uses cultural practices to maintain that fact. They do use herbicide to deal with weeds only in the fairways – and the greens and tees are “weeded” by hand. Speaking of greens, the speeds are all dictated by play on the 11th with 10 ½ being the maximum they will run the greens due to slope – and we are talking during tournaments too.


They are making changes to the course – but they are subtle and interesting. They have identified areas of gorse that were former areas of heather and have set out a long term program to control or eliminate some areas of gorse. After the 2010 Open they plan a major campaign in this area. More interestingly they have identified a series of bunkers that had rough around them in the past likely due to the complications of maintenance. They have cut the areas down so that a ball will be funneled to or run to these bunkers where the rough kept you out of them. The fairway bunkers on the 5th are now in fairway and the greenside bunkers left of 14 green are now surrounded by short grass and will funnel the ball in. They are looking currently at fairway bunkers on the 14th too.

Gordon summed it up well – he’s the 9th superintendent since Old Tom) - We are here to preserve the course and pass it along the best shape that we can.

Tees Part Four

In contrast to Lorne and Dick, Kelly Blake Moran wrote the following:

"I agree, the ability to shape a shot from the tee should be based more upon the player's creativity and skill in adjusting grip, stance, swing plane, etc in order to shape the shot, rather than prowling the tee looking for that one spot in the tee where the architect deemed he/she can use to shape their shot. It is another case of dumbing down design in my view."

I underestimated the subject matter entirely - this has been a great discussion.

Undulating Tees Part Three

Comments from Lorne Rubenstein (used with permission)

"This is a fascinating subject. I'll submit only this comment by the grand old British writer/golfer/architect John Low. He wrote, "Undulation is the soul of golf." Crenshaw is always citing this comment as going to the very heart of the game. I see no reason tees shouldn't undulate. If we're going to encourage pliable, imaginative minds in golf, we need the same in design--tee through green."

He continued in a further email, "I think anything that advances creativity and imagination is healthy. The game is moving in the opposite direction, what with GPS for yardage, mandatory carts (which reduces the likelihood of feeling the ground under one's feet and seeing all around--taking it all in, so to speak), delusional thinking about what equipment can do for a player. I'm far from a Luddite, and I applaud legitimate advances in the game. But I don't think it helps when the emphasis is on, well, minimizing thinking. It's also interesting that most golfers respond to design elements that encourage them to think and feel. Isn't it the same with film, writing, music and art? People can't always say what they like, but they respond when confronted with genuine experience that opens the mind and eyes. There's something in us that wants to be stimulated, to be moved, to feel, to be shocked out of our complacency."


I leave the final comment to another writer who contacted me on the subject, "Is this really the fight you or other architects want to fight - when ideas like shorter holes, width for freedom and central hazards will need to be explained and sold before they become more acceptable?"

To Part 4

Undulating Tees Part 2

I'm amazed at the discussion this is getting. I've had a so many emails as comments here. There are 11 comments on yesterday's blog.

For definition purposes: An undulating tee is not one where two flat areas are divided by a slope still cut at tee height – an undulating tee is one that offers intentional uneven lies usually in the form of a side-hill lie. Just to make sure we are on the same page.

OK, let’s look at both sides of the argument using a few comments I received.

First, I got this email for Jeff Mingay, “I was speaking with Dick Zokol today, and he asked me if I saw your blog this morning. Zokol says he loves the idea of uneven tees, and that he always looks for uneven spots on tees, created mostly through topdressing and maintenance of course, when playing. He chooses uneven lies depending on the type of ball flight he wants. He says other PGA Tour pros and high-caliber golfers he knows do the same.” (I got his permission to share this – thanks Dick). Dick clearly uses the opportunity of an uneven lie to shape the ball when it suits the situation. Kelly also mentions he does the same in a comment yesterday. So there is a case for good players taking advantage of this situation.

The second comment supporting the idea is from a man who has very strong architectural opinions. He believes that the game needed more variety and more shot-making opportunities. He felt that the use of undulating tees would allow the players a chance to use their imaginations - which touches on the above comments. His idea is that good players should be made to hit from un-even lies since this further identifies the abilities of a great player - which is the idea of a fade lie when a draw is required. I've identified that as an idea to generate pressure - but I'm not sure I like the idea of doing that intentionally with tee slopes.

The last comment came from a superintendent I saw last night and it was all about logistics. He mentioned that if you have uneven tees, you will need to treat the sites like greens to avoid localized drying and wet spots. He saw the need to drain the tees and liekly use non-native soils in most cases except with exceptionally well drained soils. He wondered how much bigger they would need to be to deal with wear since nobody would accept a downhill lie and most people would gravitate to the flat areas. He wondered if the extra maintenance would be worth the few players that would actually embrace the concept. He finally finished up asking me why anyone would want to build this when a vast majority of golfers can’t use the feature.

I think philisophically we should assume that uneven tees be restricted to only the back tees. But that’s not the case in each instance if I understand how it has been used. I had it pointed out to me by a friend that Bill Coore has used the idea at Bandon Trails – and I would love to have a confirmation from someone. I can point to Pete Dye using the idea intentionally at The Pete Dye Golf Club on the short par three – which I can remember the numbering. I would love for the architects to spell out whether it was for pressure, variety, shot-making or opportunity.

I work with quite a few clubs - most of them spending money to level tees (which means a fall in with the natural slope at just over 1%) but none of them have yet spent money to unlevel a tee

To Part 3

Undulating Tees - Don't Make Sense

from Ron Whitten's photos in his Golf Digest article




I wasn’t going to post today but after shoveling a foot of snow, I wanted a break before starting on some work. So I ended up at Geoff Shackelford’s site http://www.geoffshackelford.com/ which I go to every single day to see what’s new.

On today’s list of articles is a link to Ron Whitten’s review of Chambers Bay.
The link to the article: http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2008/02/gw20080215whitten?currentPage=2

There was one particular part of that article that got me laughing - it was a pitch down the middle of the plate that I could not resist.

“There is hardly a flat spot on the premises, and that includes the tee boxes. In what may be the first truly original design idea of the 21st century, Charlton convinced his colleagues to abandon traditional tee pads in favor of long, skinny, free-flowing ribbons of teeing space. Many are not much wider than walking paths; many are recessed rather than elevated; most are gently contoured with a variety of flats spots just the size of throw rugs. The idea is to pick the lie that might best help shape a shot off the tee: sidehill lies if you wish to fade or draw the ball, a slightly uphill lie if you need help getting airborne, a downhill lie if you want to keep it under the wind, or a flat lie. It's too early to know whether USGA officials will accept those unorthodox teeing areas for the U.S. Open. Jones hopes they will.”

"We'll probably address that after the [2010] U.S. Amateur," he says. "But it's not like there are no flat spots out there. We have dozens of 'batter's boxes' within the undulations. I would hope they'd position the markers far apart and let golfers chose their particular lies. Our goal was to get into the players' minds, even on the tee, and to put some integrity back into tee shots. Don't let them just stick a peg in the ground and bomb it."


from Ron Whitten's photos in his Golf Digest article





For what it’s worth Chambers Bay looks like a great Modern course and is perhaps the rival to Whistling Straights for the Best Modern Style course ever built.

Now what made me laugh was the idea for the tees - which is the worst idea I’ve heard in a long time. Ask any player where they want to tee their ball and they will ALL say on a flat lie. The reason is because that lie is predictable and that is what we practice on – a flat lie. If you need to “work” the ball, like they suggest you might want to, you will make an adjustment to your swing. There’s no way any player will CHOOSE an uneven lie to work the ball since it’s unpredictable – and they never actively practice this.

Here’s the secondary problem of this idea. Let’s say that 50% of the tees are flat and 50% has undulation. Given the choice, as I said before, all players will choose a flat lie. What we end up with is all the wear on the flat sections. If you think putting the tees only on the roll will solve this – go play a public course and watch what happens to the tee markers on a poor section of tee. I digress, essentially assuming the 50-50 ratio we have cut the useable area by not half but by in reality by 60% when you take in account of the lost area around those flat spots. So golfers will choose to go to 40% of the available tee every time. So what we have is a poorly conceived idea that will lead to concentrated wear. If the Jones team thinks golfers will accept this notion of uneven tees they’re kidding themselves. This is not “old school” as suggested but a completely foreign idea that will never be accepted.

I ask you to ask all your friends to see if anyone of them in competition would intentionally tee the ball up on an uneven section of a tee.

To Part 2