Trees...just thinking

In any other sport involving a ball, we wouldn't accept trees in the playing field.

Trees and Golf Agronomics

There is an art and a science involved in maintaining an exceptional golf course.  Let’s start with maybe the easier of the two, the science, and how trees affect that science of bentgrass greens.

Grass needs sunlight to grow and air movement to stay cool; aesthetics, strategy, and emotions aside, it’s fairly simple. Regardless of how skilled and qualified your grounds management and staff may be, trees planted in inappropriate locations will reduce turf quality.  Trees planted to the east and the south of greens will negatively affect turf conditions. As trees continue to grow, shade conditions will worsen.  Trees that block the necessary morning sun and impede air movement will continue to make the greens’ turf weaker during the summer months. 

It has been one of those near certainties in my thirty plus years in golf…that the best green on almost every golf course is the highest, largest, most sun baked and windswept green on the course. Conversely, the worst green on almost every golf course is the lowest, shadiest, smallest green with stagnant air movement. Bentgrass loves sunlight and air movement.

Cool season turfs, including bentgrass, wake up in the morning and begin to photosynthesize. The bentgrass will take in the available nutrients and water and turn them into energy in the form of carbohydrates. In the heat of the summer when the stresses of summer are present, the bentgrass on your greens needs to carbo-load before the start of the heat/endurance race for the day. It takes sunshine and cooler soil temperatures to do that.

Imagine two marathon runners, one carbo-loads and has the available energy to run the race, the other takes in a third as much in carbohydrates and peters out in the race. Which runner do you want your grass to be in the summer? Do you want a grass that has more energy or less energy? Selective tree removal that reduces or eliminates shade on greens from dawn until two in the afternoon will improve the stress tolerance of your greens and result in improved putting surfaces.

Air movement on greens improves the cooling potential of the grass and will reduce soil temperatures. Bentgrasses flounder as soil temperatures reach the upper seventies and higher. Increasing air movement to greens will help the grass and soils cool themselves off in much the same fashion as swamp coolers do or how we might stand in front of a fan on a hot day and feel cooler. Air movement can and should be enhanced through the removal of vegetation that restricts air movement and the addition of fans (surface and subsurface). These fans will improve overall turf health by cooling plants and soil off and reducing the humidity in the turf canopy.

How do trees affect the art of providing an exceptional golf course?  

Thirty years ago I worked at Merion Golf Club, which many consider acre for acre to be the best course in the world.  At Merion, the tree program was proactively managed down to the last detail.

Trees were never planted in linear rows.  Never. They were clustered, which gave a sense of forest while still being positioned to achieve planned and aesthetic goals.  Strategy and Member enjoyment were considered whenever possible by locating these clusters 275 yards from the tee on the left side of the fairway, not 225 yards on the right side unless they would knock down your ball and keep it from going OB.  Merion even planted White Pines (tallest grower) closest to the tee, Austrian Pines going down the fairway and lastly Scotch Pines (smallest grower) further down the hole. 

So how should you plant or remove trees to better your golf course:

•  Identify the trees adversely affecting your agronomics first.

•  Agree that clusters of trees are always better than linear rows of trees.

•  Trees, like bunkers, can be placed to make the course more challenging for a low handicap and more enjoyable for a higher handicap.

•  Take advantage of the topography of your course and open up some of the vistas.

•  Remember all trees grow and in doing so shade will become more of an issue each year.

•  When planting or replacing trees, plan based upon the trees mature height and spread.

•  Have a plan!

 More on Trees and Golf Course Architecture

INTERVIEW LINK

Zokol on Golf's Mind Game

Becoming Disco Dick: ‘This could be heaven or this could be hell’

MARCH 4, 2016 BY TIM O'CONNOR LEAVE A COMMENT

Would you risk being ridiculed to play better golf?

Richard Zokol did.

On our latest Swing Thoughts podcast, Zokol talks about taking a risk that not only propelled him into the lead of a PGA Tour event, but also helped him to learn how to use his mind to play better golf.

On Episode Eight of ST, the Canadian Golf Hall of Famer tells engaging stories about his 20-year adventure on the PGA Tour and shares great insights that can help you play better golf.

The native of White Rock, British Columbia was a rookie on the tour in 1982, but by July he had still failed to make a cut. “I was climbing the walls with frustration because I wasn’t able to perform,” he said. “I was playing well but my thoughts were getting me ahead of me.”

At the Western Open in Chicago, he bought a Walkman, which for you younger folks was a portable cassette tape player and radio that fit on your belt that you listened to with headphones.

He was sure that listening to music while playing might help him stay calm, but the idea of wearing headphones during a PGA Tour event was “radical. I thought, What if I shoot 80?”

He “chickened out” in Chicago and didn’t wear the headphones. He missed yet another cut and kicked himself for failing to take the risk.

Feeling extremely nervous, Zokol teed off in the first round in Milwaukee on the 10^th tee at 7:30 a.m. “with no one around.” He let partners Ronnie Black and Larry Rinker get ahead of him, unzipped his golf bag and put the headphones on. The Eagles were playing; he thinks the song was Hotel California, which features the perfectly ominous line for the risk he was taking: “This could be heaven or this could be hell.”

Coming down his 18^th hole, he was seven-under par and leading the tournament. He could tell his headphones were generating some excitement because of all the photographers snapping his picture, yet he felt calm. “I was in my own little world.”

Zokol was chill but the PGA Tour was alarmed. Tour officials phoned the United States Golf Association for a ruling and learned that it was legal to wear headphones if the player was listening to music.

He shot 69 and 70 in the second and third rounds, and came down the stretch Sunday in the lead with four shots to play. Alas, the 23-year-old rookie became overwhelmed when he thought about winning and he made double-bogey and bogey to finish T5.

Regardless, Zokol’s bold move paid off. He gave himself a chance to win, and the media excitedly told the story, christening him Disco Dick and vaulting him into the limelight.

More importantly, he became more competitive. “I wore headphones on tour for a year before I stopped. I needed to learn how to control my thoughts without listening to music. I didn’t want to be dependent on the distraction that the Walkman provided,” said Zokol who won two PGA Tour events in 1992, including the Milwaukee Open.

Zokol said the Walkman experiment launched him on a journey of self-discovery, working with mental coaches, learning how to meditate and developing skills in the mental game, which remains a passion since his retirement from the tour. He now works as Golf and Real Estate Specialist at Predator Ridge Resort in Vernon, British Columbia.

“I discovered just how much psychology is involved in the game,” said Zokol, who is working on bringing a technology product to market to help players to evaluate their decision-making and execution.

“What most golfers don’t realize is that the best golf equipment they can ever have is their mind. But not too many people realize this premise.”

GEOFF SHACKELFORD, has it right again!

USGA, ASGCA Partnering For Pro-Bono Design Services

I know what you're thinking, the USGA has been changing courses free of charge for decades. 

But this is actually a program geared toward courses no hosting championships and hosting the everyday golfer. Certainly something like this is a long overdue use of the Green Sectionand of architects, though I do fear for courses receiving recommendations designed to generate pricey re-construction of greens to USGA specs.

What also is missing: the USGA maybe commiting some of its $400 million in reserve to the occassional restoration of a worthy muni. Oh well, a great start...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

USGA, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTS ANNOUNCE PARTNERSHIP
TO SUPPORT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE GOLF COURSES

FAR HILLS, N.J. (Dec. 8, 2015) – The United States Golf Association (USGA) and the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA) have launched a collaborative program to help publicly accessible golf facilities improve the design and maintenance of their courses and deliver a better experience for their customers.

Combining the expertise of ASGCA member architects and USGA agronomists, scientists and researchers, the program will provide pro bono consulting services to facilities that need assistance to achieve their goal of making  their layouts more enjoyable and reducing their maintenance costs.

“Course design and maintenance form the foundation of a golf facility’s operations,” said Mike Davis, USGA executive director. “With the knowledge that the ASGCA and USGA can offer, more publicly accessible facilities will be able to strengthen this base, while promoting resource efficiency, a better golf experience and a stronger connection to the local community.”

Starting today, facilities can submit an application for the service, which will include an on-site evaluation, professional analysis and a report outlining recommendations for improvement. Recommendations can cover course design, agronomy, environmental stewardship and golf course operations, with the goal of lowering costs while also improving the golfer experience.

“The ASGCA, along with the ASGCA Foundation led by John LaFoy, is pleased to partner with the USGA on this initiative,” said Steve Smyers, president of the ASGCA. “Golf facilities have long benefited from the efforts of ASGCA members and USGA agronomists. Collaboration between our experts will have a positive impact on the facilities we support. ASGCA members are excited and proud to bring their expertise to this program.”

Interested facilities must submit an application by one of three deadlines over the coming year: March 15, Aug. 15 or Dec. 15. The application can be found here.

Canal Shores Golf Course, a community-owned and operated facility in Evanston, Ill., is the first course to receive a pro bono evaluation through the program.

“This has been an incredible opportunity,” said Jason Way, of the Canal Shores planning committee. “We have some great ideas about how to improve the course, but the assistance from the USGA and the ASGCA allows us to get past the initial planning process, so we can move forward with our vision for making Canal Shores a multi-use community green space that the maximum number of people can enjoy.”

Selected facilities must express a willingness to carry out the recommendations from the USGA and ASGCA. Facilities will be expected to track and report the effectiveness of their improvements based on specific metrics.

A video that shares more detailed information on the program and Canal Shores can be found at usga.org via the following link.

The partnership complements the USGA’s course consulting services, which deliver implementable solutions to support a healthier future for golf facilities. In October, the USGA also announced a five-year master research partnership with the University of Minnesota to study and develop solutions to golf’s present and future challenges, including environmental sustainability.

The video features Hunki Yun explaining the program from the USGA's new Far Hills TV set. Love the echo chamber vibe!

Here is the application page.

My Comments:

Geoff,

I don't know whether we should laugh or cry. It's kind of like hearing those words, "We're the government and we're here to help." "We're the USGA and the ASGCA and we're here to help." A bit of skepticism is warranted.

Hopefully, these "agronomists" will steer courses away from building USGA greens. In my opinion, the USGA green is a costly mistake and is the highest source of pollution per square foot of turf in the world.

My thoughts on USGA greens:

http://aggca.blogspot.com/2010/02/usga-greens-and-emperors-new-clothes.html

12.8.2015 | Armen Suny

Richard Zokol Interview on St. Andrews and the Open

Canadian Golf Hall of Fame member Dick Zokol shares his extensive experience on the Old Course, including one story about Shetland ponies in the Road Bunker that we won’t go into here, Jordan Spieth, Dustin Johnson, Rickie Fowler, Tiger Woods and all things British Open.

To listen to that conversation with Hutch, click below.

Zokol, Open Interview on Golf News Now

USGA Greens and the California Drought

With the drought in California worsening, we should all be thinking about protecting our most precious resource, water. Many of you that have read my USGA Greens and The Emperor's New Clothes understand that I think that the USGA green construction method is flawed, in not only its basic concept but in many other ways. But now, I want to address an even more critical element, water demands.

In California and many other parts of the country, golf courses are using low quality water (high salts and bicarbonates) for irrigation. This trend will continue as more focus is put on a higher and greater use (people and food) of water resources, golf course irrigation will necessarily and rightly, be subjugated to use of inferior irrigation water. So now the question is, how do green construction methods affect water usage? Does a USGA green use more or less water than a California green or a High-tech pushup green?

On a recent trip to a desert golf course, the Superintendent was telling me about his flushing of his USGA greens. He was putting what amounted to well over 2 inches of water on the greens to flush the salts out. He may do this every two weeks. Mind you, most of this flushing water is lost, the goal is to force the salts past the "perched" or "false" water table. The USGA green holds water above the gravel blanket and salts accumulate there. They need to be flushed on a regular basis and in areas of the country where rainfall is minimal or drought is occurring, flushing is required to move salts out of the root profile. This USGA Report suggests that flushing (leaching) of greens requires an additional 20% of water. In my opinion, based upon years of observation, flushing may increase total water usage on USGA greens by something closer to 40%. Either way, we, as responsible turf managers should be thinking of ways to reduce water usage.

Well, what if there isn't a "perched" or manmade "false" water table caused by the gravel blanket? Would greens constructed in that fashion require flushing? Yes, they will but the amount of water to keep the salts moving downward and out of the root zone may be considerably less. Anecdotally, I have seen numerous golf courses that are growing the same turf species on USGA greens and non-USGA construction tees and the USGA greens required flushing with 20%-40% more water than their basic demand while the the tees did not require any flushing.

The golf course maintenance industry needs to do some "honest" research and possibly a little soul searching to determine if there is a way to construct greens that use less water. 

An Homage to Riviera's #10...Sagebrush #13

#13 at Sagebrush

Riviera is once again hosting golf's best and it causes me and many others to think about the Tenth hole. The Tenth hole, has come to embody the drivable Par 4. My partner Richard Zokol loves this hole with all of his heart and soul. Professional golfers, Golf Design aficionados, and virtually anyone that would ever even think about discussing the drivable Par 4 will automatically default to talk of the Tenth at Riviera, the prototypical drivable Par 4. It is "the" drivable Par 4 and everybody knows it.

So, when we, Whitman, Zokol, Suny, were designing Sagebrush and there was an opportunity for a fairly short downhill Par 4,  Zokol wanted to embrace the embodiment of Riviera's Tenth. We didn't want to, nor did the topography allow for a copy of the hole, but the spirit of the Tenth could be captured in a very different aesthetic and topographical environment.

Whitman threw up his arms and told Zokol to figure it out. There was really nothing there for a green site; it all had to be created. Even though the 13th green looks as if it belongs to the property and was always there, it is by far the most manufactured green and surrounds on the course. 

The hole plays downhill at 320, 292, 188, 178 yards and Zokol wanted the layup shot to require a very difficult approach shot to offer significant encouragement to the golfer to drive the green and that the further to the right that the shot was missed the more difficult the recovery shot.

#13 From the Tee

As we talked about the hole and it really all came down to a green and the surrounds which had to be created, I wasn't sure that I was "getting" the vision. And that caused me to get out some modeling clay (plasticine) and sculpt what I thought Zokol was looking for. He loved the model and we gave it to the shaper to build after having hauled a lot of fill into the area. What happened to the model...well, rumor has it that Whitman placed it gently into the irrigation pond.

Take a look at the hole and you'll see that the bunker gets deeper and deeper as you go further right and back. And then the short grass continues to slope away drastically the further to the right and back. All of that with a green the slopes rather smartly from the right to the left with OB to the left of the green.

The scale of this picture that Zokol took of me after he and I finished the bunker with Italian Grape Hoes shows just how much more difficult things get the further right and back you end up.

Did the hole work? Did it capture the essence of Riviera's Tenth? All I can tell you is that a high percentage of golfers attempt to drive the green. In fact, there was a hole-in-one on the 13th by Chuck Kobasew, a right winger for the Pittsburgh Penguins of the NHL. We took that as a sign of success.

Skiing's Lesson for Golf's Governing Bodies

The International Ski Federation (FIS) has done the unthinkable...changed an equipment policy in the face of controversy. Maybe the USGA, PGA Tour and the R&A can learn something from the FIS.

To put this in simple terms, the FIS changed their Giant Slalom ski specifications, taking them back 20 or 25 years in technology. Does this sound like something the powers of golf should pay attention to? Now, the FIS did this to help reduce injuries and whether or not it's going to do that remains to be seen.  But the FIS did what they thought was right, period end of story, despite the fact that the world class competitive skiers and manufacturers in general may not have been pleased with the decision.

I suspect that the FIS could care less what equipment and technologies non competitive skiers use to pursue improvement in their sport. And the USGA and R&A shouldn't spend any time worrying about what technologies that the 99.99% of golfers utilize to increase their enjoyment of the game.

Golf and the challenges that technology have placed upon our sport aren't safety issues but they have caused the vast majority of our storied golf venues to become virtually obsolete and outdated for championship golf. Something needs to be done with the golf ball and the USGA and R&A need to show some intestinal fortitude and begin to protect the game at its highest level.

Golf's Future Growth...Product Placement

Let's face it, kids just aren't that interested in playing golf and it appears as if we will lose an entire generation of golfers. Most kids, in all probability, think that golf is a game for old men. We, as an industry, need to find ways to make golf appealing to kids. Golf organizations have been spending tens of millions of dollars a year trying to attract kids to golf but have failed. The economy and rehashing the same old ideas for growing the game of golf do not bode well for our sport. We need to find new and innovative ways to make kids want to know more about or even, dare I say, play golf.

First Tee and Tiger Woods were going to save golf, remember. And now, The PGA of America is going to save golf with Golf 2.0. I hope that we get some more software updates for Golf 2.0 before it's too late. I'm just afraid that it's going to be more of the same bureaucracy driven mediocrity that ends up making us feel like we are doing something, even if it is the same old thing. It's time to try a entirely new 21st Century approach.

Let me propose a new idea, Product Placement or Embedded Marketing to promote golf. It has worked for everything from soft drinks to automobiles and more; it can and will work for golf.  Pay the  network, studios, Executive Producers or whomever to place golf and golf characters into their youth oriented sitcoms and movies. Expose tens of millions of children to golf through television shows and movies that they are already watching. This way we won't need to change kids' behaviors to expose them to golf, they'll get our message in their own family rooms. And then of course since we would be buying this Product Placement, we would dictate that the golf character be one of the more popular, hip, cool, dope characters on the show. If we can create mainstream youth culture characters that are golfers, kids will begin to think of golf as part of the norm for their peer group.

There are undoubtably many ways to attract young people to the game of golf; as an industry, we need to constantly reevaluate and better our efforts. If we don't start thinking about growing the game of golf in new youth oriented ways, it won't grow and it will truly become a game for old men.

Minimalist Golf Course Architecture Movement- State of the Union

The last decade has seen a tremendous shift in golf course architecture. In a "back to future" sort of movement, more natural and sustainable types of golf courses sporting strategic and playability options have become not only accepted but also desired and expected. The movement has been termed Minimalism. The true Minimalists, Coore and Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, and a couple of handfuls of others, have been at it a lot longer than just the last decade. They have brought a style of golf course design back from golf's origins to the forefront of modern golf design. Golfers along with golf developers embraced these courses with their typically lower construction and maintenance costs. And as market acceptance of Minimalism has grown, every Golf Course Architect/Designer on the planet is trying to jump on board.

No man involved on this bunker. Pure minimalism

It has been and continues to be interesting to watch many Golf Course Architects embrace or at least attempt to embrace the new Minimalist Movement in Golf Course Design. These conventional Designers seem to have fallen short of making the transition. More often than not, they just morph into another form of convention and sameness. Putting uniform rough edges and longer grasses on bunkers and earth forms seems to be the standard approach, but the forms are the same as they have always been. Green shapes, contours and sizes don't change, nor do the fairway widths, contours, and grassing lines, nor do the bunkering schemes and certainly the playability and strategic options don't seem to have changed. It's as if, just a little bit of window dressing is all that it takes to make the leap. These wannabe Minimalists should spend more time studying nature and varied golf strategies, and a lot more time on site during construction if they want to join the ranks of the Minimalists.

Minimalist features and earth forms must originate from nature not man. Man or in this case the Designers must learn to mimic nature while offerring varied strategic options if they want to join the movement. And as for those with more analytical minds and souls, they may never be able to make the leap. Minimalists are artists at heart. They have an innate ability to imitate and manipulate nature to create inspiring golf. Great golf courses are a derivative of nature first and man second. Until conventional Designers understand this they really don't have a chance of becoming Minimalists.

It isn't very hard to imagine some of this erosion being incorporated into a course

And as much as we see the wannabe Minimalists struggle to produce natural, unique golf, we also see the struggles of that original group of Minimalist pioneers. Because even the true Minimalists need to guard against falling into their own sense of commercialism, comfort and convention to insure that their courses don't have a sameness and repetitiveness or even, dare I say, become caricatures of great golf courses. These same pioneers must remember that embracing the ground game was the beginning of the movement and more and more, we see them drifting away from the ground game to embrace "cheap" aesthetics. Is a Minimalist true to themselves when they create virtually all of their green sites perched on benches? It still looks like Minimalism but it surely doesn't play like it, when the ground game options have been minimized or eliminated and the air game is the only option. Maybe all of us should look in the mirror once in a while and remember that playability must remain at the forefront of Minimalism.

Perhaps all Golf Course Architects and Designers should be required to periodically renew and refresh our minds and bodies through the study of nature, oh yeah, and maybe a trip to the Old Course.

There are natural forms and shapes all around us, all we have to do is look. These images presented herein are examples of feature inspiration that I saw in Western North Dakota and South Dakota. It isn't that hard to imagine golf and links golf that embrace great and varied strategic and playability options on this ranch land or to use these concepts as inspiration on another piece of ground.

Forms inspired by nature are tough to create when the study and focus of golf course architecture is often only about other courses.

It's all right there; everywhere we look, the shapes, forms, and imperfection of nature are evident. All we have to do is look.

Libertarian Philosophies in Golf Course Architecture

I want to propose and coin a "new" concept in golf course design...Libertarian Golf Course Architecture. Libertarian Golf Course Architecture encourages or possibly even demands that golfers make a choice and generally have choices and options in how they can play holes and golf shots. This design philosophy may be much closer to the origins of golf than any other philosophy presently in play. The Libertarian Golf Course Architecture philosophy allows golfers to have free will and play the golf hole with varying strategies and the golf shots that can be played in different fashions. Golfers should be allowed to play as bravely, aggressively, safely, smartly, or for that matter, idiotically as they choose to. It isn't our job as designers to deprive the golfer of his choices or options, only to present them as an organic puzzle for the golfer to solve.

Too often in golf, the golfer is forced to play the hole and entire golf courses in a certain manner. Could that be Totalitarian Golf Course Architecture? Perhaps Pete Dye could be likened to the Mussolini of golf course designers based upon his propensity to impose his will on the golfers...kind of like being the benevolent dictator of golf course design. He is going to tell you exactly where to hit the ball and what shots you must hit to have a chance at success on his courses. Shot after shot, your options are very limited.

And while some might not unreasonably suggest that Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw are more like, well, Haight-Ashbury in the 60s with a little Ken Kesey thrown in for good measure. We could view them as the flower children or the counter culture of golf course design but I think that they are that and just so much more than that. What Bill and Ben are, is perhaps the first modern designers to embrace Libertarian Golf Course Architecture coupled with an organic process and understanding of golf. They just understand earth forms and their relationship to nature and how that interacts with golf and the golf experience.

On the positive side of Golf Architecture, there are a growing number of golf course architects that trend towards these Libertarian Golf Design Philosophies. They encourage you to have strategic options and the ability to play a hole differently based upon your own assessment of the conditions, course and your game at the moment. Coore and Crenshaw, Doak et al. Gil Hanse, and a few of the lesser knowns, including Zokol and me (Suny, Zokol Golf Design) all like to give golfers options, even if the golfer doesn't initially realize it.

Zokol and I believe that in order for a golf course to be compelling, that a more libertarian philosophy of golf course architecture must be employed with just a touch of a laissez-faire approach to strategy. Call it freedom of choice in strategy and shot selection or Libertarian Golf Course Architecture.

More thoughts on Golf Course Architecture, Just click here

Chirkinian Passes

Anybody that ever spent any time with Frank Chirkinian came away with one thought...he was special. Special in a sense in that the word "icon" which, is used all too frequently these days, seems totally inadequate in describing what Frank Chirkinian was; he was a giant in the golf and TV industry. He passed away yesterday. His brilliance and his acerbic wit and cutting remarks, all offered with blunt honestly, will be missed by many. Each week when you see a scoreboard on TV, think of Frank; he was the one that gave us scoring as a plus or minus against par. Up until that point, golf was scored solely by gross score, pretty tough to understand what was going on while golfers were still on the course. The TV camera in the blimp, yes, that was Frank too.

Many in the golf business got to know Frank through his role at CBS and were aware of his creative intellect and vision. My relationship with Frank was different. Frank was an Armenian from Philly, as I am, knew my Father and Mother well and grew up with my Aunts, Uncles, and other assorted relatives before he became the TV broadcast pioneer.

For six years beginning in 1986, I spent a week with Frank at Castle Pines, where I was the Golf Course Superintendent for the "International" PGA Tour event. My wife and I always looked forward to that week and especially for the chance to get together with Frank for dinner and some lively discourse. During the broadcast of one of the tournaments, I received what may be the record for most "on air pops" (mentions during the broadcast) for a Superintendent during a PGA tournament. The course played pretty well and the greens were regarded as some of the best, but I always felt that Frank was taking care of me. Underneath his crusty exterior there was this huge heart.

Looking back at those years and being able to spend time with and observe Frank, his intensity, intellect, and genius reminds me just how fortunate I was in knowing Frank.

And just one last thought- What would the PGA Tour have been like if they had hired Frank Chirkinian as Commissioner?

Golf Course Setup and Major Championships

Golf's governing bodies continue to struggle with setting up the venues for Major Championships. At times this is an embarrassment to our sport and in 2010  it was more of the same, with questionable setups at three of the four Majors.

After the 2010 US Open, people were talking about how the USGA had gotten better at setting up Championships. Well isn't that a left handed compliment? It has gotten better but is it good? The 14th hole at Pebble was certainly interesting. And the players seemed to be just fine with St. Andrews, even if, according to Frank Nobilo, of the Golf Channel, the R&A didn't mow the greens on Saturday. And then we certainly had an interesting PGA Championship.

Conversely, Augusta seems to be able to come up with a pretty good setup year after year. Augusta has an advantage. Augusta's Committee knows their golf course better than any organization knows any of the venues that they visit once a decade or so. Can you imagine Augusta having a poor setup like some of the other majors?

Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing mystical about setting up a golf course, there is no crystal ball, no mind altering drugs required or sports psychologists to consult. It just is not that difficult. Golf is different than other sports, in that the playing field is different from venue to venue and for that matter from day to day and therein lies the problem. Variables that influence the setup include; architecture, slopes, soils, grass species, climate, sand, thatch, etc. Officials of golf's governing bodies have a challenge that is unique in sports; preparing a field of play that has the potential for infinite variability. I don't envy their charge but I do question their process, and their personnel's experience/expertise. How can that be? Perhaps these people do setups for several lesser events each year. That really is not much experience considering that the Assistant Superintendent at your favorite golf course does setup every day and hundreds of times a year.

To setup a golf course for a Championship, one must determine the pin positions, tee locations, green speed, rough height, fairway widths, and irrigation. That's about it, yes there is more but understanding the basics can lead to a successful Major Championship setup. Architecture, grasses, weather, and intended playability are to be reflected in the setup, yes, but they can't be adjusted by man or committee the week of the event.

Haven't we all played in a tournament where the Pro, Superintendent, Committee Chair, or someone from a golf organization did a setup that was inappropriate, usually with every tough pin placement and green speeds that were just too much. Many newcomers to course setup don't have an understanding of setup or a feel for it and just look for difficult pin positions without regards to the ebb and flow of the golf course. In a four day event, a golf course can have similar levels of challenge while being very different each day or dare I say, provide a variable level of challenge from day to day. During a Championship, could that help identify the best player?

How is it that the PGA Tour, week in and week out, has great setups on their events? Slugger White, the PGA Tour's Tournament Director and Rules Official, seems to be able to figure things out pretty well every week and yet the governing bodies of golf have struggled at an alarming rate. Maybe the Majors should bring in Slugger to teach them how to do setup. When is the last time that we saw a PGA Tour event choose pin positions that were inappropriate for the green's speed or have greens that were bumpy because the week before an event a well intentioned official decided to turn the water off causing greens to get so bad that the the TV broadcast tried to minimize their close ups of the balls rolling on the greens? I can't remember one.

Golf's Championships, its Majors, have  course setups dictated by people that do setup a few times a year and really have little experience doing setup. You've got to love these organizations. When I was a young man, the stimpmeter was being touted by the USGA as the tool to achieve consistency from green to green on a particular golf course. And now, they are routinely talking about and possibly creating different speeds from green to green and maybe even on the same green. One green is softer and slower than another. Is that consistency or is that a flaw in the setup of the golf course? Green speed should be based upon the the most severe green or desired pin placement on the golf course on that day of play. Pick that one pin placement that you really want to use and determine the speed that works. That should be the speed for the rest of the greens. This can be determined years in advance of an event. This panic management of the USGA, R&A, and PGA of America rolling into town the week before a Championship and making these decisions on the fly is just bizarre.

You may now be asking yourself, how I can say these things. Good question. The answer is that I was a Superintendent for 6 PGA Tour events, one PGA Championship, an Assistant Superintendent for a US Open, and on the greens crew for an Amateur. I have done golf course set up literally hundreds of times on Top 100 golf courses and overseen it thousands of times. I half kidded with a friend of mine recently who has been closely affiliated with golf's governing body that while I was still in my teens, that I had done more setup than anyone in any of these organizations. It may have been a little bit of a stretch or worse yet, maybe not.

But let's not stop with greens. What about the fairway narrowing and straightening? I don't know about the R&A but I do know that the PGA of America and the USGA routinely narrow fairways down and straighten them for their Championships. In doing so, they do make the golf courses tougher. But they also create less strategic options for the golfer and less to think about on tee shots. Does this identify the best golfer? It seems to minimize strategic options and dictate one way to play each hole. This could just be a philosophical approach to identifying the best golfer that I disagree with. I believe that the player can be challenged both with accuracy and options to more fully and completely test their mind and mettle.

Roughs for Championships are another area that the Majors just seem to struggle with. Different grasses and different weather conditions require different heights of cuts to provide a proper challenge. The typical problem that we see with roughs is when Bluegrass or other cool season grasses are allowed to grow too high. The roughs quite often are trimmed up on Tuesday and Wednesday to about 4 inches and then left to grow for the remainder of the Championship. What happens is that bluegrass starts to fall over when it gets much longer than 4 inches. So we end up with roughs where some balls are in grass that is laying over against the grain and other balls are laying on top of grass that is laying down in the direction of play. Two bad shots, one player chunks their ball out with a short iron and the other has a hot lie that they can hit any club they want. If the grass had been trimmed to whatever that "right" height is, both players and most of the rest of the field that day would have had similar conditions when in the rough. This happens every time that the roughs gets too long. The key is that there is a height that can be determined and managed to provide really good rough for championships.

Once a venue is picked, it is incumbent on the Association holding the Championship to plan for course setup. A digital level, available for $75 at hardware stores, and a couple of days on site could alleviate the embarrassment of poor pin placements and speed setup of Championships. Measure the slope of each pin placement that is desired and determine which is the steepest. Then mow that green and measure the speed. Is the pin accessible? If so mow it again and see if it still works. If it does roll the green and repeat. At some point the pin won't work. The last speed that worked is the speed the greens can be on the day that that pin placement is used. On other days another pin placement on the same green or another green will determine what the "right" speed for that day can be. And heaven forbid that we can look at the % slope of the green with a digital level and know what speeds work for what slopes. As far as adjusting greens speeds, it really isn't tough. Most Superintendents have a pretty good handle on that and can provide any desired speed. Perhaps these organizations could let the Superintendent know what speed the greens should be a year in advance instead of on Wednesday afternoon of the Championship or worse yet on Saturday or Sunday morning of the Championship.

I have measured the slopes of iffy pin placements and have a pretty good idea of what speeds work on different slopes. Perhaps these Organizations that run major championships could do a little research and know that a pin placement on a 4%, 3.5%, 3%, 2.5% slopes can have maximum green speeds of x feet on the stimpmeter. Nope, I'm not telling, I've done my work, but for $75 and an afternoon, anybody that works for one of these Organizations that is involved in course setup can figure it out. It doesn't seem like something that you discover during a Major Championship after your mistakes have marred the competition.

Let me suggest something that I have done before. A year before the event, the golf course should do a run-through of course setup. This can be a special treat for golfers at these Championship venues and allow all parties to get comfortable with the setup. This will help everyone work out the little things or at least identify the issues with plenty of time to address them.

Perhaps some of our friends that control Golf's Major Championships will read this and use some of these ideas to minimize the risk of further embarrassment for golf. Or maybe, just maybe they don't care as long as revenues aren't affected.

Suny's Philosophy of Golf Course Architecture

Golf Architecture- Majors and The R&A, USGA, and PGA of America

The best golf courses in the world are routinely asked to make architectural changes to their courses in order to get a Major Championship. It isn't hard to see why a club would succumb to this pressure. After all, golf history and tradition are driving factors in hosting a Major and then of course there are the revenues and prestige for the clubs and courses.

What gives the R&A, USGA, and PGA of America standing, from a Golf Course Architectural standpoint, to change great golf courses? Is anyone in any of these august or semi-august organizations any more qualified to make changes to great golf courses than any group of golfers in the grille or bar after a round of golf? I don't think so. Are these organizations so arrogant as to think that they know how to make the greatest golf courses in the world better than they are?

Today, the most common reason for the architectural changes demanded by these associations is because the golf ball travels much further than it did in the past. So in order to balance their inability and lack of intestinal fortitude to control the distance the golf ball travels in Championships, the great protectors of the game of golf, demand that changes be made to the great golf courses. Shame on them. Maybe St. Andrews should make a local rule for the The Open and tell the R&A how far the ball can go. Maybe Pebble Beach and St Andrew's should have accepted their Opens with the caveat that the distance the ball travels will be the same as it was in say 1972 or 1982. Is that asking too much? Don't these great golf courses have the right to have their golf courses protected from the latest Wham-O Super Ball?

But it's worse than that, even before these organizations lost control of the distance the ball travels, they were making changes to great golf courses. I don't know how far back it goes but I know that it goes back at least to the 1960s with Joe Dey at the USGA making changes for US Opens at two golf courses I know pretty well. Changes were made, that in my opinion did not make the golf holes or courses better, just more one dimensional. What, other than potential revenues to host courses, gives these organizations the right to make architectural changes to great golf courses?

What will it take for the World's Greatest Golf Courses to say enough; if you want to play our golf courses, you'll play it as it is? If you, the governing bodies of golf, have allowed technology to get out of hand, deal with it yourselves and leave our golf courses alone.

Runoff Areas- Rewriting Golf Course Architecture History

In the last couple of weeks we have seen runoff areas featured at Pebble Beach during the US Open and at Aronimink for a PGA Tour event. Some modern golf course architects and so called restoration experts have convinced golf's oligarchy that runoff areas are historically accurate and were prevalent features for some golf course designers of the "Golden Era" of architecture.

In the 1920s and the 1930s there were no runoff areas on golf courses. It's just that simple, the revisionist golf course architecture history is purely a fabrication. How do I know this? Good question and the answer will appear self evident. Fairway mowing heights in the 20s and 30s were generally between 1 and 1.5 inches or about the same as today's intermediate rough height. Does a ball roll very far in intermediate rough? No, it settles down very quickly. It really is that simple, the great designers of the 20s and 30s could have wanted to have runoff areas but the mowing heights didn't allow it to happen. Greens in the 20s and 30s were maintained at 3/16 to 1/4 of an inch or about the same as the most closely cropped runoff areas of today.

Now mind you, I really like short grass around putting surfaces, although I have difficulty understanding why most modern designers only utilize short grass to take the ball away from the green. It seems as if a balance of run-on areas and runoff areas would be more interesting golf architecture but that's another blog for another time.

Having worked at Aronimink some thirty plus years ago, I really enjoyed seeing the golf course on TV. I did golf course setup there for three years and knew the golf course fairly well. I thought the changes were an improvement to the golf course but to call them historically correct in regard to playability is just flat wrong.

Below are two articles from the 1930s that talk about fairway mowing heights. We might assume that in the 1920s the mowing heights were even higher.

1933. The Bulletin of the United States Golf Association Green Section. May. 13(3): p. 86-87.

The Masters, My one and only trip to Augusta

In 1989 or maybe 1990, I was fortunate enough to get to go to Augusta for the Masters. I had a wonderful experience and was fortunate enough to do some things that the average fan wouldn't ever get to do. The golf course was far different than I had expected. It was an amazing piece of ground and in those years it was far more open than I had expected. And those greens had more slope than any greens I had ever seen.

Richard Zokol Interview- Toronto Golf Show on Golf Course Design

Zokol Interview

Richard Zokol, 2-time winner and 25 year PGA Tour veteran, has some prescient thoughts on what's wrong with golf and where Golf and Golf Course Design are headed. To view the Zokol interview, click on the link above.

 Sagebrush Golf and Sporting Club

Golf Digest's Best New Course

Canada for 2009

Zokol is a partner in Suny Zokol Golf Design.