Golf Pitchcare Classifieds
Can your club overcome the crisis?
Could the reason some golf clubs have financial problems be due to incorrect and excessive expectations from members regarding the maintenance of their golf courses?
Isn’t an essential precondition of being a successful golf club, in the longer term, having a knowledge about history, etiquette, respect and responsibility to the game, nature and the greenkeeping?
The very complex inter-relationship in greenkeeping between the weather (sun, shadow, wind, dew, rain, thunderstorm, fog, air humidity, frost and snow), climate change, the micro-climate - influenced through the impact of potential altitude differences, woods and of waters (streams, rivers, ponds and lakes) - all this usually changes throughout the golf course, and between golf courses, and makes things very challenging.
With all these difficulties, and the stress on the golf course from year-round play, total disease-free or stress-free turf is not realistic. It may be asked: Are you always fit and healthy throughout the whole year? By raking bunkers properly, repairing divots and pitch marks correctly, you helpfully assume responsibility and, thus, have an influence on disease and the unevenness on your playing surfaces.
Up to the 1940s, most golf courses worldwide were built using horses, wheelbarrows, shovels and rakes - and the natural lie of the land. The economic boom in golf from the 1980s made everything seem to be possible with big bulldozers, that often destroyed the natural soil structure. Over the decades, with these new earth- moving toys, building costs rose steeply. Unfortunately, when planning such bizarrely modelled modern surfaces, some architects ignored or did not realise the increased maintenance needs and put the owner’s investment at risk.
There were also construction errors due to golf architects failing to monitor building contractors during the construction phase. In only very few cases, greenkeepers were involved as experts when the rootzones for greens and tees were installed.
Particularly in the 1990s, courses were lengthened as balls flew ever further for the expert golfers. Again, money was wasted unnecessarily and the maintenances costs increased as well as the time it took to play golf.
To make things worse, deep green coloured turf came into vogue, the only beneficiary being the fertiliser industry. More fertiliser went hand-in- hand with more irrigation. The result being wet and soft surfaces, and their friends, thatch, black layer, annual meadow grass (Poa Annua), disease and undesireable plant species, all which thrive in wet conditions. Unfortunately, many courses are still victims of this chemical based, costly greenkeeping method.
Those caught in this death spiral of wet, weak, green turf will be in for a shock when laws change, limiting or even banning the use of water, fertilisers and pesticides, as is starting to happen in Denmark and Holland.
132 I PC APRIL/MAY 2017 Norbert Fox “The Turf Fox”
The desire for a higher green speed by reducing the height of cut increases the stress on the grasses, the chemical maintenance costs and the pressure on greenkeepers. This is easily solved, and slowing green speeds to realistic levels will increase the health of your turf.
Each golf course is unique. The differences between location, weather, structural conditions, sward composition and financial resources render comparisons between golf clubs inappropriate.
Golfers also bear the same responsibility for appropriate and environmentally-friendly maintenance on the course. Unrealistic expectations only increase the already incredible pressure on greenkeeping staff. This only results in frustration, illness, burnout and, finally, many excellent greenkeepers leaving the business. It is not realistic to look at courses on TV, maintained by twenty-five people with million plus budgets. Those courses are in peak condition during the one yearly tournament week. Can we expect similar conditions from a small staff with a budget only big enough to maintain one of the TV holes? So, please question the maintenance targets on your course. Your greenkeepers will gladly have a Q&A session with you.
Some golf courses have already begun to break these costly cycles and deliver excellent firm and true playing conditions (Notts/Hollinwell and Royal Worlington are two inland English examples). Maintenance is an annual big ticket item, and following a reasonable concept of sustainable, traditional/natural maintenance in greenkeeping is vital to financial success.
It is your responsibility to establish formalised, realistic, long-term course policy documents and plans for staffing, fertilising, topdressing, disease control, mechanical maintenance, overseeding and the like, which endure when the executive board, management or greenkeeping team changes.
For the benefit of clubs, they ideally need board members who are engaged over the long term (at
“
Maintenance is an annual big ticket item, and following a reasonable concept of sustainable, traditional/natural maintenance in greenkeeping is vital to financial success
least six to ten years), and work with their replacements for a couple of years to ensure continuity.
It is important to have an honest and open communication on these matters, which could be supported by the Golf and Greenkeeping associations.
It is not too late! The sport of golf as a whole, that wants ‘firmness’ and ‘sustainablity’, would benefit from responsible, traditional/natural maintenance, and the long-term benefit to your golf club’s wallet would also be noticeable.
This article was drafted by Norbert Lischka, nick-named “The Turf Fox”, in conjunction with FineGolf.
www.finegolf.co.uk
Website:
www.der-rasenfuchs.de Email:
lischka@der-rasenfuchs.de
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
