Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 4766 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

Haha.  Typical Yahoo headline.  But the whole story on overseeding can be found below. \From the WSJ.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179511085429422.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5

There are some contentious issues here and disturbing to me is the idea that the rich folks who go southwest for winter golf 'require' green, not brown.

Why Brown Is the New Green

Overseeding—Used to Keep Warm-Weather Layouts Verdant in Winter—Gets an Overhaul

By JOHN PAUL NEWPORT

Scottsdale, Ariz.

When snowbirds from colder climes travel to the desert Southwest this winter to play golf, they might not realize that most of the courses here have grown a special crop of grass just for them. Each fall, grounds crews overseed cool-weather grass, usually rye, on top of the hot-weather Bermuda turf that is just going dormant. If they didn't, the fairways—during the region's high golf season—would be as brown as the desert sands.

Environment-minded folks, as well as bean counters in golf-course managers' offices, might well say: That sounds great. Dormant turf requires no water, no fertilizer and limited maintenance. And it's an excellent playing surface. Howard Twitty, the three-time PGA Tour winner, who grew up and still lives in the Phoenix area, told me last week that golf balls sit up beautifully on dormant fairways: "You get a perfect lie almost every time."

Grayhawk Golf Club

This view of the Talon course at Grayhawk shows green, overseeded fairway, and dormant rough next to it.

But aesthetics trump all when it comes to luring winter golfers, and traditionally they want to see green. "Courses here get 65% to 85% of their revenue during high season," said Justin Wood, executive director of golf for Fairmont Hotels, which includes the Scottsdale Princess Resort and its associated TPC Stadium course. "If you're a high-end course, the expectation is you'll overseed. If you don't, you can't charge the rates you need and your business will go elsewhere."

Even so, overseeding practices in the Southwest have changed dramatically in the last five to seven years, as the golf industry's overbuilding boom went bust and put pressure on bottom lines. The cost of water in the region has risen 40%, according to Brian Whitlark, regional agronomist for the U.S. Golf Association, and fertilizer costs have tripled. Most courses now only partially overseed. The good news is that golfers so far seem fine with that downsizing. The question is how much more they will accept.

(Some courses in the southeastern U.S. also overseed, but they aren't as dependent on the practice because winter isn't the prime playing season there. Courses in the north don't overseed, because grass doesn't grow there in the winter. Courses in most of Florida also don't overseed, because the grass there doesn't stop growing in winter.)

The two courses at Grayhawk, a deluxe 36-hole daily-fee facility here, are typical of where overseeding stands today. The superintendent, Ernie Pock, overseeds the fairways, greens and tee boxes but not the rough. I visited last week, played the Talon course (the other is called Raptor) and it was fine. The contrast between the rough, which will get even more golden as the season progresses, and the green fairways was visually appealing. The distinction makes it easier for golfers to know where they should be hitting and actually helps speed up play.

Rough can be 30% to 60% of a course's total acreage, said Whitlark, the USGA agronomist. Limited watering of that much turf for four or five months can save tens of thousands of dollars in Arizona. But water isn't the main savings. The seed alone can cost $100,000 per course. Fuel costs mount from frequent mowing and water-pumping. The labor costs of overseeding are also significant. Courses usually have to shut down for two to three weeks to let the new grass grow in, which hurts green-fee revenues. Overall, Pock estimates, overseeding costs can run as high as $350,000 to $500,000 a year for a high-end course.

It also weakens the Bermuda turf, as it and the winter rye duke it out for dominance. After overseeding, the summer turf is slower to grow back in and may stay scraggly into midsummer. That's the reason that Pinehurst No. 2 in North Carolina, which will host the 2014 U.S. Open, has stopped overseeding entirely: It wants its Bermuda fairways as strong and healthy as possible for the big event. It does, however, paint the dormant fairways green each winter, so that many resort visitors don't even notice.

Painting fairways is just one of the tricks that course supers can use to cut down on overseeding. The latest paints, with so-called fractured pigments, allow the plant leaves to breathe normally and also keep them warmer, thereby helping the turf green up faster in the spring. Advanced new species of Bermuda grass, most notably ultradwarf on the greens, can tolerate more traffic without damage when dormant, reducing the need for overseeding them at all. (The handful of bentgrass greens in the desert Southwest also don't need to be overseeded.)

A few progressive courses are pursuing alternative overseeding strategies. Phoenix Country Club did "reverse" overseeding this fall: allowing its fairways to go dormant, but overseeding the rough. The rationale, according to course superintendent Charlie Costello, is partly to reduce the club's carbon footprint by using less fertilizer, fuel and water. For members, an added advantage—this one more fun—is that drives roll out on the firmer, faster dormant turf an extra 30 to 50 yards.

At Desert Mountain, a private residential enclave in Scottsdale with six Jack Nicklaus courses, two courses each year are not being overseeded, on a rotating basis. The practice gives the Bermuda turf a year to recover from its annual battle with the rye, and creates a window for groundskeepers to eradicate the unwanted poa annua grass that threatens to creep onto the greens.

"It can be a tough sell, but attitudes are definitely evolving," said the USGA's Whitlark, who has sat it on several meetings at clubs across the Southwest at which greens committees have tried to persuade members to overseed less.

Given the progress that researchers are making on new, hardier grasses and agronomic techniques, Pock, a third-generation Arizona golf-course expert, expects more courses to move to minimal overseeding in the years ahead. At first they may drop overseeding for just one year every two or three, while judging member and customer reactions. "In the old boom days, when we were printing money out here, nobody cared," he said. "But we've learned a lot recently about how to create good playing surfaces at much less cost. I don't know if high-end clubs will ever get there [to no overseeding at all], but they might." Meanwhile, they can always bring out the green paint.

—Email John Paul at golfjournal@wsj.com .

A version of this article appeared December 15, 2012, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Why Brown Is the New Green.


Posted

Joe thanks for posting this article.  I have no idea why courses want to overseed.  Maybe someone with experience could tell me why.  Is it a concern with growth and divots on courses that receive significant play?  I hate playing courses that are overseeded.


Posted

It is interesting they fail to mention the cost of painting the fairways.  I'm sure that's not cheap either.  However, I'm sure it still comes out cheaper since you wouldn't have the ongoing maintenance and extra water that overseeding requires.


Posted

I love hitting off of brown crunchy dormant Bermuda.  (I like the extra roll, as well)  I've never been to Scotland but it is the texture I imagine original links turf would be.

That said, I don't know if not over-seeding causes damage to the turf?

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4766 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Popular Now

  • Posts

    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
    • Wordle 1,668 2/6* 🟨🟨🟩⬛⬛ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.