Golf Course Superintendent Ready to Answer Any Questions You May Have

[TexasTurf]

2 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I actually like it a lot. 

My man. Just keep fighting for what is best at your club with within the means of what you can afford.

 

Focus on playability instead of aesthetics. I was an aesthetics guy when I started and realize now I was wrong. Both are great but golfers notice playability of surfaces way more than perfect edges, bunkers, stripes, and mowing heights.

[caniac6]

15 hours ago, TexasTurf said:

My man. Just keep fighting for what is best at your club with within the means of what you can afford.

 

Focus on playability instead of aesthetics. I was an aesthetics guy when I started and realize now I was wrong. Both are great but golfers notice playability of surfaces way more than perfect edges, bunkers, stripes, and mowing heights.

From my experience working at courses, some things just don’t look up to the standards we had. Even the GM isn’t too thrilled with some of the work. He even mentioned that the quality of the sod was not good. Overall playability is pretty good, and hopefully some of the cosmetic issues will be better when things green up in the spring. The greens were almost 70 years old, so they had to be redone, and the irrigation system was so old they were having a tough time finding parts. It’s unfortunate that they went to the expense of adding all the new bunkers, and it only added .2 of a stroke to the course rating. It’s a pretty fun course to play, and I guess my retired mind should stay retired, but it’s tough when I see something not done right.

[TexasTurf]

10 hours ago, caniac6 said:

From my experience working at courses, some things just don’t look up to the standards we had. Even the GM isn’t too thrilled with some of the work. He even mentioned that the quality of the sod was not good. Overall playability is pretty good, and hopefully some of the cosmetic issues will be better when things green up in the spring. The greens were almost 70 years old, so they had to be redone, and the irrigation system was so old they were having a tough time finding parts. It’s unfortunate that they went to the expense of adding all the new bunkers, and it only added .2 of a stroke to the course rating. It’s a pretty fun course to play, and I guess my retired mind should stay retired, but it’s tough when I see something not done right.

I get it. And it's actually quite normal to receive a bunch of bad sod. I say give those guys one growing season to fix it. There's nothing they can do when it's cold to make the grass better. It is what it is for now, anything they disturb now is just going to die over the winter because there's no roots.

[mallrat]

11 hours ago, caniac6 said:

From my experience working at courses, some things just don’t look up to the standards we had. Even the GM isn’t too thrilled with some of the work. He even mentioned that the quality of the sod was not good. Overall playability is pretty good, and hopefully some of the cosmetic issues will be better when things green up in the spring. The greens were almost 70 years old, so they had to be redone, and the irrigation system was so old they were having a tough time finding parts. It’s unfortunate that they went to the expense of adding all the new bunkers, and it only added .2 of a stroke to the course rating. It’s a pretty fun course to play, and I guess my retired mind should stay retired, but it’s tough when I see something not done right.

First off that is a lot of bunkers. Seems a little excessive to me. 
 

I’d be curious to hear the designers intent on most of them. When we remodeled our course the designer took out 3 bunkers that were designed to keep balls from going OB. One was on a short par 4, bunker was from 270-310 out and was there to catch balls that would otherwise run into the woods. 2nd was on a par 5, 2nd shot for people going for it. Bunker was about 70-40 yards away from the green and put there to collect balls that would go into the only house that borders the property. 2 more were taken out that were designed to make golfers make a decision on par 4’s, hit driver or lay up with a short 2nd shot. 

[caniac6]

3 hours ago, mallrat said:

First off that is a lot of bunkers. Seems a little excessive to me. 
 

I’d be curious to hear the designers intent on most of them. When we remodeled our course the designer took out 3 bunkers that were designed to keep balls from going OB. One was on a short par 4, bunker was from 270-310 out and was there to catch balls that would otherwise run into the woods. 2nd was on a par 5, 2nd shot for people going for it. Bunker was about 70-40 yards away from the green and put there to collect balls that would go into the only house that borders the property. 2 more were taken out that were designed to make golfers make a decision on par 4’s, hit driver or lay up with a short 2nd shot. 

He said a lot of the new fairway bunker would be directional bunkers, and help define the holes. Our course had pretty severe slopes in some greens with limited hole locations, so he softened the greens, and added bunkers to make the approach shots more challenging. I think they want to attract some tournaments, possibly college teams, the bunkers and some added distance did very little to the course rating.

[mallrat]

For the Bermuda guys, does Bermuda stripe a lot more prominently than other grasses or are those lines just really burned in?

[TexasTurf]

10 hours ago, mallrat said:

For the Bermuda guys, does Bermuda stripe a lot more prominently than other grasses or are those lines just really burned in?

Negative. If you're referring to the players championship it's all overseeded ryegrass fairways and rough, which stripes very well. And the greens are overseeded with poa trivialis and sometimes velvet bent to depending on the year.  

 

However, you can burn in lines on bermuda to get the same visual effect later in the year, see colonial before they renovated and started overseeding too. It looks cool but it is horrible for playability. Like 20 to 30 yard distance loss if you land into the grain vs down grain.

 

The best bermuda is verticut and mown in different directions, stands straight up, and it looks much more uniform, although brownish from above. So it is perceived as unhealthy by TV viewers and sponsors, so they went away from that (even though that's what the players want.)

[caniac6]

We renovated our course last year, and put a new heat tolerant bentgrass, 007, on our greens. It seems like when the ball slows down, it stops quickly. It’s almost like the grass is sticky. It doesn’t seem to roll out like old types of bentgrass, and the green speed is significantly slower than our old bentgrass/poa greens were. Has anyone had any experience with this new bentgrass, and are these issues common?

[TexasTurf]

9 hours ago, caniac6 said:

We renovated our course last year, and put a new heat tolerant bentgrass, 007, on our greens. It seems like when the ball slows down, it stops quickly. It’s almost like the grass is sticky. It doesn’t seem to roll out like old types of bentgrass, and the green speed is significantly slower than our old bentgrass/poa greens were. Has anyone had any experience with this new bentgrass, and are these issues common?

If it's the new 007XL, emphasis on the "XL," I can get you in touch with the guy who has spent his last 20 years breeding it, he is very open and accommodating. Even if it's the older version 007 he's the foremost expert in the world regarding bentgrass. 

 

Bentgrass is "sticky" by nature compared to bermuda and poa but is much more "true." Either way he'll get you sorted out.

[caniac6]

5 hours ago, TexasTurf said:

If it's the new 007XL, emphasis on the "XL," I can get you in touch with the guy who has spent his last 20 years breeding it, he is very open and accommodating. Even if it's the older version 007 he's the foremost expert in the world regarding bentgrass. 

 

Bentgrass is "sticky" by nature compared to bermuda and poa but is much more "true." Either way he'll get you sorted out.

I don’t know if it’s 007 or XL.

[TexasTurf]

18 hours ago, caniac6 said:

I don’t know if it’s 007 or XL.

Roger that. All these new grasses (except for maybe Oakmont and some other ancient northeast courses) will perform better than the previous type. They're probably waiting to push it since they are still new. Chasing speed and roll out is a very fine line between life and death. Some guys are more comfortable with that than others. 

[caniac6]

I know new greens tend to be firm, but our greens are about as hard as the parking lot. They were planted last August, and it’s hard to stick the divot tool into the green, let alone trying to stop a ball. How long until they soften up?

[Dancin]

1 hour ago, caniac6 said:

I know new greens tend to be firm, but our greens are about as hard as the parking lot. They were planted last August, and it’s hard to stick the divot tool into the green, let alone trying to stop a ball. How long until they soften up?

New greens generally will need 2 years minimum. Could easily be longer depending on environment and budget/intention the course has to make them softer.

[NDSwim]

Looking to add a gimme circle once a week.  What can be used that will not be able to be seen the next day?  Ultimately we don’t want the greens to have a bunch of burnt in circles all around it after doing it for a few weeks.

[Malvern]

18 hours ago, NDSwim said:

Looking to add a gimme circle once a week.  What can be used that will not be able to be seen the next day?  Ultimately we don’t want the greens to have a bunch of burnt in circles all around it after doing it for a few weeks.

You could use the hole as a gimme circle, has been used successfully for many years.

[Holy Moses]

22 hours ago, NDSwim said:

Looking to add a gimme circle once a week.  What can be used that will not be able to be seen the next day?  Ultimately we don’t want the greens to have a bunch of burnt in circles all around it after doing it for a few weeks.

Chalk?

[teejaywhy]

On 12/23/2024 at 4:57 AM, caniac6 said:

He said a lot of the new fairway bunker would be directional bunkers, and help define the holes. 

 

Ugh,  There is the signature of an architect stuck in the 90's and for me, would be a disqualifier if I were reviewing the proposal and doing the hiring.   

 

Bunkers should serve a strategic function.  Aiming bunkers are purely aesthetic, providing no real value to the actual play of the game.   Just adds to the maintenance budget.

[caniac6]

42 minutes ago, teejaywhy said:

 

Ugh,  There is the signature of an architect stuck in the 90's and for me, would be a disqualifier if I were reviewing the proposal and doing the hiring.   

 

Bunkers should serve a strategic function.  Aiming bunkers are purely aesthetic, providing no real value to the actual play of the game.   Just adds to the maintenance budget.

As it turns out, I have been in my fair share of those “target bunkers”. There have been quite a few members upset over some things this particular designer did.

[SLP1967]

tape on the flagstick

[Cbfodalo]

Question 1

When I  first started playing golf around 35 years ago, most courses had a 1st cut.  Fairway, 1st cut; then rough. Now it seams we go from fairway to painfully thick rough.  I figure it's a labor and equipment issue , but would appreciate  to hear your thoughts on this subject. Especially in regards to pace of play. Watching guys walk up and down the rough trying to find a ball right off fairway is just painful. At least if there was a 1st cut of around 8' or the width of your mower where a ball that misses fairway by a few feet is still able to be found and hit.

 

Question 2. 

Ground under repair.

I know it's almost impossible to keep consistent grass everywhere on playing surface, but I feel like the areas inside cart path and not in Woods should have some defining area thats either rough or waste area.  I find it terrible annoying to hit a ball right off fairway where there is grass all around but I happen to land in some hard pan with rocks or clumps of grass.  It seams like those areas either should have grass or be made into a hazard or marked as ground under repair. Am I being unreasonable by being annoyed that areas on the course that should have grass do not?

And if there should be grass there and there is not shouldn't it be marked as ground under repair? Or at very least provide a local rule to treat it as such?

 

 

[bcjim]

12 hours ago, Cbfodalo said:

Question 1

When I  first started playing golf around 35 years ago, most courses had a 1st cut.  Fairway, 1st cut; then rough. Now it seams we go from fairway to painfully thick rough.  I figure it's a labor and equipment issue , but would appreciate  to hear your thoughts on this subject. Especially in regards to pace of play. Watching guys walk up and down the rough trying to find a ball right off fairway is just painful. At least if there was a 1st cut of around 8' or the width of your mower where a ball that misses fairway by a few feet is still able to be found and hit.

 

Question 2. 

Ground under repair.

I know it's almost impossible to keep consistent grass everywhere on playing surface, but I feel like the areas inside cart path and not in Woods should have some defining area thats either rough or waste area.  I find it terrible annoying to hit a ball right off fairway where there is grass all around but I happen to land in some hard pan with rocks or clumps of grass.  It seams like those areas either should have grass or be made into a hazard or marked as ground under repair. Am I being unreasonable by being annoyed that areas on the course that should have grass do not?

And if there should be grass there and there is not shouldn't it be marked as ground under repair? Or at very least provide a local rule to treat it as such?

 

 

Agree with all this.  It's aggravating having to play from various blemishes on the course that  whenever there is a tournament,  get painted gur.

 

And if a week or 2 later,  i can still see the faint gur paint,  can i treat it as gur?

[Bonneville85308]

2 hours ago, bcjim said:

Agree with all this.  It's aggravating having to play from various blemishes on the course that  whenever there is a tournament,  get painted gur.

 

And if a week or 2 later,  i can still see the faint gur paint,  can i treat it as gur?

 

Seems like at the public courses I play, the only time those areas ever get marked as GUR are right before some kind of tournament. It's always the same spots. They never get repaired. In my mind they are perma-GUR.

[mallrat]

On 5/25/2025 at 5:04 PM, Cbfodalo said:

Question 1

When I  first started playing golf around 35 years ago, most courses had a 1st cut.  Fairway, 1st cut; then rough. Now it seams we go from fairway to painfully thick rough.  I figure it's a labor and equipment issue , but would appreciate  to hear your thoughts on this subject. Especially in regards to pace of play. Watching guys walk up and down the rough trying to find a ball right off fairway is just painful. At least if there was a 1st cut of around 8' or the width of your mower where a ball that misses fairway by a few feet is still able to be found and hit.

 

Question 2. 

Ground under repair.

I know it's almost impossible to keep consistent grass everywhere on playing surface, but I feel like the areas inside cart path and not in Woods should have some defining area thats either rough or waste area.  I find it terrible annoying to hit a ball right off fairway where there is grass all around but I happen to land in some hard pan with rocks or clumps of grass.  It seams like those areas either should have grass or be made into a hazard or marked as ground under repair. Am I being unreasonable by being annoyed that areas on the course that should have grass do not?

And if there should be grass there and there is not shouldn't it be marked as ground under repair? Or at very least provide a local rule to treat it as such?

 

 

1. we called ours “the step cut” we did away with it during Covid. I really like the look but it’s 6 hrs twice a week. IMO, just most courses saving on labor. 
 

2. many of these GUR spots, at least at my course, are the results of cart traffic. If a course isn’t marking them gur it’s either laziness, lack of knowledge or lack of care. Our spots aren’t generally in playable areas. Our spots like that are where every group decides to drive onto the grass from the cart path. 

[smashdn]

On 5/25/2025 at 5:49 PM, teejaywhy said:

Bunkers should serve a strategic function.  Aiming bunkers are purely aesthetic, providing no real value to the actual play of the game.   Just adds to the maintenance budget.

 

99/100 times I agree but there are occasions and situations where an aiming bunker could prove useful for pace of play functions.  I am thinking a course, such as a resort course or public course, that gets a fair amount of players playing for the course for the first time and you have some challenging topography.  I could see in those instances where it might warrant an aiming bunker or something visual to sort of indicate the direction/turn of the hole or boundary of the playing corridor.

 

Admittedly it would, and should, be a rarity to have a bunker such as described above.  And if you could use a bush or tree it would be better from a cost and maintenance standpoint, though aesthetically it might not fit the course and a bunker would be better visually. 

[caniac6]

5 hours ago, smashdn said:

 

99/100 times I agree but there are occasions and situations where an aiming bunker could prove useful for pace of play functions.  I am thinking a course, such as a resort course or public course, that gets a fair amount of players playing for the course for the first time and you have some challenging topography.  I could see in those instances where it might warrant an aiming bunker or something visual to sort of indicate the direction/turn of the hole or boundary of the playing corridor.

 

Admittedly it would, and should, be a rarity to have a bunker such as described above.  And if you could use a bush or tree it would be better from a cost and maintenance standpoint, though aesthetically it might not fit the course and a bunker would be better visually. 

When the architect held a meeting with members, he used our 7th hole as an example of a hole needing directional bunkers. He kept saying that when standing on the tee, nobody knows where to hit it. I kept thinking that you hit it towards the green. It’s a straight hole, slightly uphill, and usually into the wind. He added 40 bunkers, and our course rating went up .2 of a stroke. I think it was a massive waste of money.

[mallrat]

38 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

When the architect held a meeting with members, he used our 7th hole as an example of a hole needing directional bunkers. He kept saying that when standing on the tee, nobody knows where to hit it. I kept thinking that you hit it towards the green. It’s a straight hole, slightly uphill, and usually into the wind. He added 40 bunkers, and our course rating went up .2 of a stroke. I think it was a massive waste of money.

That’s insane. We did a mild renovation 5 years ago and took out 16 bunkers. 5 of those I didn’t agree with, 2 were designed to catch balls that would be going ob otherwise. 2 we’re visual bunkers, designed to break up all the green of the course, neither came into play often but frames the holes nicely and the last one was a very large church pew that was designed to keep balls and break up a shared fairway. 

[smashdn]

20 hours ago, caniac6 said:

When the architect held a meeting with members, he used our 7th hole as an example of a hole needing directional bunkers. He kept saying that when standing on the tee, nobody knows where to hit it. I kept thinking that you hit it towards the green. It’s a straight hole, slightly uphill, and usually into the wind. He added 40 bunkers, and our course rating went up .2 of a stroke. I think it was a massive waste of money.

 

That would be one of the 99 times.

 

It has been a long while since I have been on course with one and it be warranted (thus the 99/100 comment).

 

An example I can think of it is a dogleg left off the tee where the right side of the fairway drops off out of site so as you were not able to see the right edge of the fairway.  The green was tucked up and behind trees well left so that you were not able to see it.  There was a bunker (in play) in the turn of the dog leg and another well out of play around 360-380 on the far side of the fairway that only served to be a spot to aim with or add some sense of depth perception to gauge how much room you had in the fairway.

 

Truthfully, if the archie was sneaky, he could have left out either bunker and would have likely had the golfer playing a much more conservative shot than was necessary.

Edited May 28 by smashdn

[caniac6]

1 hour ago, smashdn said:

 

That would be one of the 99 times.

 

It has been a long while since I have been on course with one and it be warranted (thus the 99/100 comment).

 

An example I can think of it is a dogleg left off the tee where the right side of the fairway drops off out of site so as you were not able to see the right edge of the fairway.  The green was tucked up and behind trees well left so that you were not able to see it.  There was a bunker (in play) in the turn of the dog leg and another well out of play around 360-380 on the far side of the fairway that only served to be a spot to aim with or add some sense of depth perception to gauge how much room you had in the fairway.

 

Truthfully, if the archie was sneaky, he could have left out either bunker and would have likely had the golfer playing a much more conservative shot than was necessary.

My point was that we didn’t need the bunkers. The members were never confused as to where to hit the ball. We were all scratching our heads when he made that comment. There were no hazards on this hole. Because of the prevailing wind, and the slight uphill, it played longer than the yardage. The longer players just pound it past the bunkers, so they are placed to penalized the average/ shorter hitters, and they are already at a disadvantage.The rationale for the renovation was to make the course more challenging for the better players, but I just see them flying the trouble. I really think we got a bad architect. 

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

My point was that we didn’t need the bunkers. The members were never confused as to where to hit the ball. We were all scratching our heads when he made that comment. There were no hazards on this hole. Because of the prevailing wind, and the slight uphill, it played longer than the yardage. The longer players just pound it past the bunkers, so they are placed to penalized the average/ shorter hitters, and they are already at a disadvantage.The rationale for the renovation was to make the course more challenging for the better players, but I just see them flying the trouble. I really think we got a bad architect. 

Since the introduction of the SG metrics to golf, if I was trying to get an architect to toughen up a course for the better players, I would make sure the architect understood and made use of those metrics and concepts in their designs. It doesn't help you now, but you never know what the future can bring.

[iporcinis]

Not sure if this is the best place to post this question but wondering if someone could give me a perspective. The club I play at hired a new superintendent this year and the course has been in noticeably worse conditions, in particular the greens. I've attached a couple photos of the putting green where I tried to capture the issue - those varying shades of green create a very bumpy surface. Can anyone tell what is going on here?