Quote:
Originally Posted by Topgun 1776
You didn't ask the hard questions. If weather, etc. were to blame, how come 10-12 executives and the pitch and putts had pristeen greens? Was the weather etc. any different 1 or 2 miles away from greens with bad conditions? Don't tell me about the amount of foot traffic either! Golf greens are meant to be played on...ALOT. The pitch and putts have more traffic of inexperienced golfers (every 7-8 min) dragging their feet, etc., but they looked beautiful. Thank you for your meeting and synopsis, but the solution is/was extremely simple:
Whatever whoever was doing differently at the courses with no issues....DUPLICATE it and STOP doing what whatever they were doing at the courses that were mistreated.
|
As you said, it was a "synopsis", I left out plenty of detail. I'll try to answer your questions.
First off, not all the courses were constructed the same. Some of the early courses, they just moved around some dirt and planted 2 different kinds of grass. Their construction process evolved and later courses were (I was told) built to USGA Specifications. I don't believe that to be the case (I'm not suggesting anyone was lying or trying to mislead me). "USGA Specifications" are a bit of a moving target. It's not as simple as A, B, C & D and there are still plenty of ways to "cut corners", yet still claim to be "USGA Specs".
Secondly, I suspect (I have not verified) that not all the contracts are identical. The contracts have evolved through the years. I suspect the basic contract 15 years ago, was 3 pages & probably 28 pages now. The contracts I have read, were all 3 year contracts with provisions to "renew", without a new Bidding process. Again speculating, I suspect some were renewed, without a thorough evaluation of how good (or poor) of a job the contractor was doing.
You are 100% correct. Golf Greens are expected to endure a huge amount of foot traffic and if they're not constructed properly to begin with and properly maintained, the traffic is going to destroy them.
The "Pitch & Putts" are fairly new ... better construction and easier to maintain.
I have minimal experience with the Executive Courses from a playing perspective, but I suspect the "newer" the course, the better condition it was in. Most likely, owing to more careful original construction ... & in many cases as you pointed out, better maintenance contractors.
That's the best I can do, without getting too deep into the weeds.
IMO, we need new contractors, better contractors, more specific contracts, better oversight and an overall agronomy plan, with specific addendums to address the specific needs of every individual golf course.