Mikeod |
06-02-2013 11:38 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickey100
(Post 685712)
I question some of the decisions that are made regarding the courses. I personally never thought there was an issue with the greens at Tierra del Sol. The fairways needed work, but the greens seemed fine. So what do they do - pull up all the greens, they'll be replanting, and the course won't be decent for a couple of years. Yet a course like Amelia on Mallory - seems to have a lot of problems with greens - they are dry, don't hold. They had problems for years with the practice green at Mallory, and the pro there showed me a layer of organic material below the surface that was causing the problem. They finally ripped up that green and re-planted, but it took them years, after initially denying there was a problem. I wonder if the courses were really built to the specs they should have been, and now we are paying for that in maintenance issues. Mikeod, I agree that the management cares, but I do wonder about some the decisions that are made.
|
A lot depends on what you're used to. I started out playing golf in the northeast and remember that the better courses had bent greens that held almost any shot. Then I went west and played on hybrid bermuda greens. I thought they were bad at first because they were hard and would only hold a short iron that was well struck. I made friends with the course superintendent, who had a lot of experience with both grasses, and he told me that a healthy bermuda green will be more firm than a bent green in general. Part of it is the amount of water a bent green requires, especially over the summer even up north. He also felt the base was different which also contributed to the firmness. Bent roots are fairly shallow, whereas bermuda roots can get very deep, although the majority of roots will be in the top 3 feet or so. This is why bermuda needs less water and why it thrives in the south.
I can't tell you why Tierra's greens are being re-done and I agree they seemed to be good. Perhaps there was an ongoing problem that required an inordinate amount of work to keep them that way. I don't know. Perhaps they were approaching the end of their useful life and they decided to remake them at the same time they reworked the rest of the course.
I, too, wonder if the construction method used is optimal for long term health of the courses or if it's aimed at creating a quick greening up but creates maintenance nightmares in the future. And there is also the question of funding renovation. We are lucky in that all the execs north of 466 plus the Pimlico courses get funding from the AAC and, so far, there hasn't been a problem with funds for maintenance and upgrades. And they have approved a ten year plan for maintenance and renovation for these courses. I wonder if there is a similar plan and funding for the championship courses.
Again, I would like to see if there is an opportunity for a resident group to interact with golf administration regarding the championship courses. Even at the non-equity clubs I belonged to, there was an opportunity to discuss concerns with management/ownership. They may not agree, but at least we were heard.
|