Trees and golf: What you don't want to know

Twitter has been ablaze lately on the topic of trees, so I took this old blog and changed it a bit, I call it recycling.

Golf Course Superintendents refer to the time of Memorial Day until Labor Day as The 100 Days. This is the stressful time to grow cool season turf. The sun will be at its highest point in the sky soon, UV radiation begins to damage the plant, respiration outpaces photosynthesis, irrigation systems become irritation systems, and so on. 

 
The 100 day stretch at many over-planted messes, is marked by small fluffy white stuff falling from the sky. No, it's not snow, it is cottonwood seed. Shortly after the oaks finish making their mess on the property, it's the cottonwood's turn. I love trees, I really do, I just want them in the correct place, maintained, and not damaging assets!

 
Tree management in golf costs real dollars. Branches on playing surfaces must be removed prior to mowing, loose debris clogs up rollers and radiators, tree bases require hand trimming, roots steal water and nutrients from turf requiring additional management, shade makes the turf sad, and tree canopies need to be properly maintained. (We won't mention leaf removal until October 😀) 

Trees directly impact the bottom line by the money that is spent maintaining them and indirectly by causing delays in work production. As we enter our 100 days, we like to be as efficient as possible, to free up labor for the important job of managing the cultural methods that are necessary to keep the cool season turf alive during the peak of stress. The jobs of slicing, spiking, hand watering, top dressing, brushing, and so on, need to be the priority in June, July, and August.

I hope you have a pleasant holiday.

See you on the slopes, I made first tracks!

Turf

Why "the bunkers are inconsistent" is the second most offensive phrase in golf.

A hazard is defined as "something that is likely to cause a problem or damage."

Once upon a time, some would say a better time, bunkers on a golf course were defined as hazards.  We traded the term bunker for the more popular "sand trap," and the evolution began as we have now moved to "sand features."  We no longer have bunkers and they certainly almost never appear as hazards.  Our expectations are that they should play the same and we should be able to get up and down and avoid the penalty that a hazard would certainly offer.

So, where have the hazards gone?  Is the golfing ego so delicate that a presenting bunker that proves itself as a hazard, penal in nature, has lost all of its impact on the game?

Bunkers are hazards, they are penal in nature

Bunkers are second largest consumer in labor costs on a golf course, with the greens being number one.  When you consider the square feet of the bunkers, they come pretty close to the cost of greens per square foot.  That seems crazy, that a feature meant to make the game more interesting by its penal nature costs almost as much as the putting surface.  We put a tremendous amount of effort to make a hazard not a hazard.  We would be better off to refer to them as "sand features," and put benches out so we could admire their aesthetic qualities.

Footprints after playing a shot

The amount of time and money that we have dedicated to a make a feature that is meant to penalize players in order to make it "consistent with the others," "more playable," or "appealing," is absurd.  Bunkers are hazards, and hazards are penal......they are to be avoided and it your ball happens to find such a place, you can expect to pay a price.  Otherwise, what is the point?

When did we become so fragile that our off line shots are not supposed to cause us some sort of pain or grief.  Golf is meant to humble us and if we can't handle being humbled, well.....maybe we should look at that.  But I digress....

Sand smoothed with foot leaves a playable hazard

Since the pandemic, many golf courses took the bunker rakes away.  What we discovered was that the bunkers did not look much different at the end of the day than they did when the course was scattered with rakes.  Golfers who used to take the time to smooth the bunker with a rake, were now able to do a decent job with their feet, smoothing the shot and their foot placements with a sweeping motion.  Walking with care in and out of the bunker, they were able to disrupt very little sand.  Without a rake, they were still able to leave the bunker semi-playable for the next unfortunate lad.

The loss of the bunker rake also turned out to be a great deal of labor savings.  Mowers didn't have to reposition rakes and either did the mechanical bunker rakes.  Regular course maintenance realized improvements in efficiency.  It seems like the benefits of not having rakes scattered all over the course were greater than the benefit of having them.  I think it is truly possible and reasonable that bunker rakes can be removed and the nature of the bunker not be affected greatly.

Bunker rakes are another amenity, cost of replacement, reduced efficiency, and yearly maintenance all associated with such items should be evaluated.  This great game could be much better off simplifying and getting back to the soul of the game.  I say lets bring back the hazard and do away with sand features.

Golf is a great game and we could improve on our efforts to make it even more sustainable, affordable, and inclusive.  Bunkers as hazards is a good place to start, along with ball washers.

I say we begin a movement in golf to "bring back the hazards!"

We just need a good slogan, any suggestions?

Turf

Why "that tree makes that hole" is the most offensive phrase in golf: an investigation into golf course over-planting

"Anything temporary must not precede over the permanent," the end.  Shortest blog post ever (mic drop).  An idea that was presented to me by my friend Greg Martin, ASLA ASGCA RLA.

The game of golf is not easy period, but somehow we've fancied the notion that trees were the only way to "defend" a golf hole.  I tried to find notation of when the "poor defenseless golf hole," began needing defending, but I can't.  What I did find was a beautiful explanation of the mindset (shocking discovery to come) that got golf into the mess of over-planting trees, shrubs, and other plant material within the confines of what should define a golf course.

Fairway turf suffering from tree roots

First, a golf hole that needs a tree to "make it," really isn't much of a golf hole and probably should be redesigned.  I propose to eliminate such a tree, play the golf hole, and if it turns out to be a total buzz-kill, no fun, and puts everyone in a foul mood, then do a redesign.  There exists the possibility, that the hole has some green contours or bunkering that will provide plenty of challenge.

Or if we find that the challenge is gone and the hole does play easier so that our 6th Flight Club Champion Runner Up is making 3 for 1 every Thursday night and grill room is in an uproar, then maybe, the hole was designed to be reprieve from getting sacked on the previous four holes, or maybe it was meant to be a place where a player knew he could "get one back."  Whatever the situation, I trust the design....the permanent, over the temporary.....any day.

There are iconic trees, I get that.  Don't throw the Eisenhower or the Hinkle tree at me, I'm talking about the silver maple that was planted in 1974.  The same tree that litters the golf course with debris, causes turf to die, be hand watered, and makes saplings grow in the bunkers.  By the way, as soon as all those things get done, we will work on finding areas to reduce the maintenance budget as requested.

Sorry about the Ricky Gervais tirade, must be the late night binge of After Life, which I recommend.

Seriously though, trees have a place and if you are interested in seeing what the original golf design of a particular course looked like, I recommend Historical Aerials.  The aforementioned website will allow you to roll over a current image and overlay a historical one at the same time.  As you sweep across an image, you literally move history across a property.  It truly is a remarkable piece of technology and I don't think I can do justice using words to what the experience is like.  Anyhow...

How exactly did we get into this mess though?  My friend believes, it began with the book "Silent Spring" published September 27, 1962, he is a bit of a pot-stirrer, but he may be on to something.  Silent Spring is a book written by Rachel Carson, who called for the responsible use of pesticides along with an understanding of the interactions of pesticide fate and the ecosystem.  The book is often regarded as sparking the environmental movement.  Silent Spring received a great deal of resistance from the chemical companies resulting in Carson's character being attacked, some even suggesting she was a communist.  So, I began there and did some digging.

Excerpt from Mr. Phelps Thesis

In 1963, Richard Morgan Phelps of Iowa State University wrote a Masters Thesis titled "The Influence Of Planting In Golf Course Design."  This thesis turns out to be more of a guide for golf courses and planting.  What is interesting, is that Phelps basically has this premise that golf is doing this 'planting thing'.  Phelps' Thesis states that a "....distinguishing mark of a superior golf course is the presence of good trees.....evidence that the course is designed and maintained for greatest pleasure."  I found the reference for the quote in a 1951 article in Golfdom by Ralph B. Bryan titled "Good News About Trees For Golf Clubs," which focuses on the Augustine Ascending Elm as a solution to the American Elm problem.  Not really a promotion for over-planting.

So, superior golf courses have good trees?  Fair enough, doesn't say we should over-plant, says we need good trees.  The search continues...so I continued digging through his references to see how we began to believe good courses needed more trees.

When it comes to resources documenting tree planting and golf, Phelps struggles, stating in his thesis that the only mentions of trees he could find were regarding:

Very little information before 1963 existed on the
planting of trees on golf courses

"...proper thinning and removal of some trees was necessary for the success of a golf course."  -Richard Morgan Phelps, Masters Thesis: "The Influence Of Planting In Golf Course Design"

Why do you think that was?  Because trees and turf don't coexist well?  Most of what was written was in support of less tree material not more!

Phelps' looked for anything to support the planting of trees and found his next thesis quote

"Nothing a club can do will contribute more to its security and permanence than beautifully landscaped grounds," -USGA Journal and Turf Management titled "Landscaping A Golf Course," -June 1953 by Dr. John R. Williams of the Oak Hill Country Club in Rochester, New York.  

 This article is clearly an opinion piece, outlining the memorial tree program at Oak Hill, which at the time was situated on 350 acres of "abandoned, weed infested farm land."  Dr. Williams even goes on so far to say that a beautiful tree or collection of them "excites admiration" of the golfer and that bunkers bordering a fairway are "ugly scars on a carpet of green."  John R. Williams is beloved at Oak Hill C.C. he is said to be the first doctor in the country to use insulin in the treatment for diabetes, in addition, he was.....you guessed it, an arborist; a nationally recognized authority on trees.

Dr. Williams was no doubt a great man, I don't want to suggest otherwise, but a great man doesn't mean that he is an authority on what is proper on a golf course.  Is seems that his opinions may have sparked some trends that would cost the golf industry for decades.  Oak Hill went on a planting spree, crowding the canvas that Donald Ross had first painted a golf course on.  When he was asked how many trees he had planted, Williams answered that he quit counting at 40,000.

Preceding the 1953 article, was a June 1950 USGA Journal and Turf Management article that  Dr. Williams penned "Oak Hills Memorial Trees." In this article, trees may not be a priority of a club and the landscaping not extended onto the golf course because of cost and also because golfers are more 

Historical Aerial of Oak Hill 1951 vs 2015

"....apt to be concerned with the flight of the ball than with the beauties of nature," 

of all the nerve!!  By the way....memorial tree plantings...worst.....idea....ever!!!

At the end of the 1950 article, Dr. Williams states that in a succeeding article; the utilitarian value of trees to golf course will be discussed and that "this phase of the subject is of the highest importance." Clearly the USGA had yielded to Dr. Williams on the subject of golf courses and trees.

In the August 1957 USGA Journal and Turf Management publication, an article by Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson titled "Beautification By Means Of Trees and Shrubs" begins with this......

"Trees and shrubs definitely contribute to the beauty and usefulness of a golf course, and landscaping is one of the sure ways for a superintendent to provide a lasting monument to himself and his efforts."

It appears this idea of over-planting golf courses was not the result of the environmental movement in the 1960's, but actually began as an inside job promoted by the USGA in the 1950's.  The only sources that Phelps could find that would suggest that golf courses needed to plant trees to be useful and beautiful, was the United States Golf Association.

As it turns out, Phelps thesis has some really good information and cautions greatly against planting without careful consideration and expert consultation.  Consultation not from one source...but from many, the collaboration that egos often protest against.  Arborists, Golf Course Architects, Golf Course Superintendents, and Finance, all have very valid insights and contributions to make to such a discussion.  Phelps even cautions against bright colors planted near greens because they may be distracting......a point in my 35 years of being on a course had never heard.

The "mess" we are cleaning up, well, it seems that many clubs and courses through the 50's and 60's were heavily influenced by the combination of linear golf course architecture (popularized by Robert Trent Jones Sr.), the USGA's seemingly supportive stance of landscaping the golf course, and the environmental movement sparked by urban sprawl.  We have gone full circle it seems, realizing that the adage "anything worth doing is worth overdoing," was totally applied to tree planting on golf courses.  Now we are painfully experiencing the reality of the costs associated with our actions.  

A combination of factors all contributed to one thing for sure....making golf more expensive.  Every "thing"  we put on the course has impacts.  Every "thing" has some cost, short and long term.  When we make something more expensive, we make it more exclusive.  Growing the game of golf, means making it more inclusive, not exclusive.

Want to grow the game, make it more inclusive?  Make it more simple.

I dont hate trees.

Cheers,

Turf



Endnotes:

And we will visit the whole linear architecture thing in another post........trainwreck.

If you like golf course architecture, check this out.... Aspects of Golf Course Architecture: A Study in the Examination and Application of Design Principles in Golf Course Architecture 1994, Bradley Powell.

I would like to add, in their defense, the USGA regularly promotes the removal of trees in their publications

How COVID-19 is good for golf

How can COVID-19 be good for anything?  

It seems like life as we once knew has changed forever, maybe that is true, and maybe some things will be better.  I honestly believe that suffering transforms us more than any other feeling if we do it right.  The COVID-19 situation offers us an opportunity to pause in time and really consider our situation and how current reality has come to be. If you really love golf, read this in a spot where you can let some things marinate for some time, not rushing through it like we do most things, but to take some time to pause when a sentence makes you think.

Historic clubs have established identity, here stands
the second purpose-built clubhouse in the country.

 In the last 15 years I've heard it all...Golf is Dead, Golf is Back, Golf is Dying.  The truth is that golf has been limping along.  The affluent clubs and destinations will always do well,
we can't determine the state of golf by the fact that Pebble Beach is maintaining.  When I speak of golf in this post, I speak to the average...to the masses.

Golf's identity crisis

What is really interesting about the golf industry is the identity crisis at most facilities.  The best facilities are the ones who know what they are and attract their customers solely based on that principle.   The historic clubs that have stood the test of time seem to have made things simple, not more complicated.   The "simpleness" is what conveys their awesomeness.  They seem to have a very simple and elegant definition about themselves which makes them above judgement or scrutiny.

Simple is classic

Knowing what you are allows you to attract and maintain customers right now and that is critical.  If I attempt to attract customers with the promise that I will be the greatest club in the area with some grand mission statement, I am setting everyone up for disappointment.  Attracting customers based on some future self, even if it is loosely defined with some grand mission statement, allows each customer to define what that is on their own, and that is a recipe for failure.

Understanding what you are requires real honesty and a humble nature.  Rules to determining who you are....... Number 1) Entities can't be everything to everybody and  2) Entities can't worry about what some other facility is or isn't when determining who they are.

Golf is a sport.  

Sports have all kinds of cultural and societal impacts which will be considered if a facility wants to be golf-centric.  Golf facilities should be about golf first, otherwise its not a golf facility.  I don't know what exactly it would be, but we have them.....everywhere.  I guess they would be "whatever their focus is- facility" and golf place.  Like...Neighborhood Bar and Grill & Golf Thingamajig.

If a facility is focused on golf I would think that it would focus on one thing.....amateur competition.  It seems like all great golf facilities started there.  When you zero in on the game of golf and amateur competitions, and contemplate what that is, the things that you do well and things you do poorly will appear out of the fog like a lighthouse showing the way to lost ships.

Well run, fair, honest, and open amateur events, will draw more golfers to a place than any fancy buffet or contrived water features could ever.  Open amateur events draw people to the game and demand that such facilities provide people with the opportunity to participate in competition and this gives another layer and focus of what is really important.  Knowing what a facility is allows clarity, purpose, and simplicity.  Golf facilities, that are truly golf facilities, focus on the game.  Focus on what is necessary for the sport and provide just that before moving on to other distractions.

I will note, that there are many social clubs or fraternities that have golf courses as an amenity and that is just fine.....just know what you are and be that.  Prioritize from that high ground that you look out into the world and make sure you are surrounded by the pillars that support that position.  If from that position you decide to make a mission statement, state your focus.....what you are....immediately, so that it is clear to the staff, decision makers, and absolute leaders that "identity" which is theirs to uphold.  Notice it is to uphold, not to become!  That which you say you are is an examination of existence and now, it can be used to prioritize in the moment.  What you state as your mission (some future self) is a foggy quagmire of possibility, subject to the whims of changing absolute leadership, personal agendas, and flimsy fads or trends.

The golf industry should use this time to rid itself of its dysfunctional tendencies.  Lets stop throwing stuff to the wall to see what sticks.  Golf sticks, it is what has stayed.  We need those in absolute leadership to put aside egos, agendas, and personal vendettas.  Golf survives despite the best efforts of these things to derail it.

Modern Architecture has some explaining to do

Taking a hard look

Golf also needs to examine why our 9-hole mom and pops have closed, why we have to pay $60 a round, and must take a cart.  We have to look at the 9-hole facilities that are being built and ask why.....why are we putting forced carries and water features next to greens that are designed for beginners?  Have we lost our minds?  We need a voice of reason.  We need to look at what the over-planting of trees have done to classic architecture and the cost of maintenance.  It is also time to have some serious discussion about modern golf course architecture and what it has done to golf.

If we are to run the golf facility like a business we would determine who our consumer is, deliver what they want, and at a price they are willing to pay.  We can use this time to strip all the unnecessary fromp that puts additional strain on resources.  Golf facilities would be much better off financially with that very simple equation.  If you want to see what the USGA has to say about this, here is a link.

Golf wants to do what its always (actually recently) done, because well.....its just how we've been doing it.  Golf and in some cases pseudo-golfers, recently adopted the stereotypical country club.

The "Bushwood C.C." from the movie "CaddyShack."  Golf was more about silly amenities and entitlement than about the spirit of the game.  We ran with the idea of excess and novelty, and haven't questioned if they were really needed, if they were good for the game, or if we were just trying to keep up with the Jones'.   I say recently, because Old Tom Morris would not run his course(s) like we do.  Golf was run for golf, by golfers.  Old Tom Morris served in all capacities, all focused on the game of golf.  The primary purpose was the game for the sport.  We should put more effort into running quality competitions than on stacking pyramids of balls on maniac hill.

Old Tom Morris at the beverage cart

We ran astray when the facility became about ancillary activities, these activities began assuming the focus and consuming a lions share of resources.  I am not suggesting that all clubs or golf facilities are this way, so save your hate mail.  Clearly some clubs can afford lavish clubhouses and services, and if they are golf facilities, then those amenities were born out of golf.....not created aside from golf.  I am speaking to the clubs that are in the game of financial paycheck to paycheck.  The reality is that there are "golf" facilities who are still trying to figure out how to get more people to come and eat at the golf course instead of figuring out how to satisfy, in a cost effective way, the hunger of those who frequent the property for sport.  

The answer to how the current identity crisis happened is simple.  We built big buildings thinking they would pay for themselves.  Then we hired people to try and sell things in the big building to try and pay for it.  Then we made the person in charge of selling things in the building in charge of the entire facility.  We basically took a baseball team, built a giant hotdog stand, hired a hotdog salesman, and before we were really good at selling hotdogs, we gave him the keys to the whole damn franchise.....Sound nuts?  Think about it.

So, with all that, what can golf do?

Golf facilities should start with asking questions, like.....

Are we committed, first and foremost, to the game of golf, or something else?  What is our commitment to?  (Man cannot serve two masters, priorities will be born out of, not aside from)

If we committed first and foremost to golf, what would that look like?  How would we break the financials out to reflect that?

Golf should look at the parking lot and notice who is there and why.  Do you really have golfers, or men with sticks? (see next question)

What is the quality of our competitions? Why?  Does the quality of our competitors match the quality of our competitions?  (I bet they correlate exactly!!)

How do we encourage the beginner to play?

Is your curbside food service kicking it, how, what?  To whom?  What does this teach us about our offerings?

Why do we need all the ropes and stakes?  Is your facility walkable?  Why not?

Do golf carts/outings/functions bring our facility added value and revenue?

Do golf carts/outings/functions turn our facility into a drunken bonanza?

Do we plant things (flowers, trees, markers, walls) in the earth that we can't afford to take care of?  Hint:  if you took money away from the golf course in the past and the money hasn't returned, but you are considering adding any thing, you probably can't afford it.

An honest time

It is time to have some honest conversations.  These conversations can be entertaining as well.  It has always been amazing the types of conversations that come from golf course facilities.
For example...

Our bent grass fairways have always started about 24 feet from the front of the Tee, how can we reduce the maintenance budget?

We have always had ball washers, what purpose do they really serve?  How do we reduce the maintenance budget?

Members take a stand on the tree issue

We spend how much labor money picking up sticks from trees that we don't have enough money to trim properly?

We are going to spend how much in the fall picking up leaves from said trees?

Said trees require how much more in labor $ to grow decent grass?

We have always had water coolers, how can we increase beverage revenue?

I like flower beds next to the par three tees, why are the bunkers so bad?  How do we reduce the maintenance budget?

We pride ourselves in having any food item possible and service anytime everyday.  How can we create more food and beverage revenue?  (Notice the revenue vs. expense conversation)

I am sure you have some to add, I wish I had the venue for all to participate with some zingers.....

Simple and essential

Golfers stopped managing Golf facilities.  When that happens, golf becomes the ancillary activity and the course, competitions, the sport all suffer.  Ten dollar popcorn and five dollar sodas work at movie theaters, because they were born out of, not aside from the main focus of the theatre.

"Golf" a smart man I know quoted, "has survived two world wars, a couple of depressions, 9-11, and disco....it will survive this."  We have an opportunity in front of us, we can look at our operations and decide what is absolutely necessary.  When we go back to golfing, do we go back to what was absolutely essential for the game, or do we go back to doing what we imagined was absolutely essential?

The simple is maybe how we reach the next generation, life seems cyclical, and COVID-19 may be the catalyst that makes us reassess what essential really means.  In a world full of paradox, maybe golf is that balance, the minimal and simple escape that means so much to the human soul.  Perhaps that is why golf has struggled, we strapped it with all the clutter of our day to day lives and the game no longer offered any escape.  Golf became saddled with our messiness.  Instead of keeping to its core values we have actually suggested changing the rules to fit us and our lifestyles, probably because we had gotten so far away from the roots of the game, that we didn't recognize what it was anymore.  It didn't offer the simple beauty that is the essence of golf.

"Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
                              -Leonardo da Vinci

Cheers,
Turf