Remembering Bob Cupp: How Our Awkward Conversation 22 Years Ago Inspired My Career and Changed My Life for the Better

Photo: Golf Channel/Morning Drive

Like many others in the golf industry who have had the chance to get to know him or meet him, I was saddened to hear this past Friday of the passing of Bob Cupp.  In the two days since the news was made public, there has been an outpouring of support from across the golf world with words of praise not only for his body of work, but also for the man himself. You can read many of those with a quick Google search, including a great story by Ron Whitten via Golf Digest’s website.  For my part, I felt compelled to write about my connection to Bob, the unusual way we met, and the strange way he kicked off my career—even though I didn’t tell him about it for 14 years.

To understand, you need to know a little background about how our paths first crossed.  When I was finishing up college at Mississippi State, I worked as an assistant golf professional at Old Waverly Golf Club in West Point, Mississippi.  Bob designed Old Waverly in the late 1980s and it is still one of my favorite courses to play.  During my time at Old Waverly, I became friends with then golf course superintendent Bill Colloredo and told him of my desire since childhood to become a golf course architect after graduating from college.  I showed Bill some of my sketches and drawings and he gave me a copy of Bob’s original hand-drawn green plans for Old Waverly, which I carefully studied in my apartment while I sketched out greens I imagined for a “yet to be determined” golf course that existed only in my mind. I still have Bob’s green plans to this day.

This was in 1994, about the time that Old Waverly was talking with the USGA about hosting a US Women’s Open (which it would eventually host in 1999).  When I arrived at work one day, Bill informed me that Bob was coming to visit and look at adding a few bunkers to the course as part of getting the course ready for the presentation to the USGA.  To my delight, Bill asked if I wanted to tag along and listen.  I jumped at the opportunity.  The day Bob arrived, a group of us piled into multiple golf carts and followed hole by hole in what must have looked like a giant serpent snaking along the cart path.  Bob was in the front cart with owner George Bryan and I was way back in the back.  Each time they would stop, I would jump out and run toward the front, trying to listen and learn by osmosis.

When we were done and had returned to the golf shop, Bill asked if I wanted him to introduce me to Bob. “Of course!” I replied. We stood around waiting for the others to finish speaking with Bob and when the small crowd has thinned, Bill made the introduction.

“Mr. Cupp,” Bill began. “This is Nathan Crace.  He’s a student at Mississippi State and wants to be a golf course architect.”

“Nice to meet you,” Bob replied. “Good luck. It’s a tough business to get into.”

And just like that, it was over.  To this day, I don’t recall saying anything.  I was devastated.  In his defense, I don’t know what I was expecting.  Did I think he would say “Great! Pack your bags and let’s go! You can work for me!” Again, I really didn’t know what I was expecting, but I wasn’t expecting what happened.  I tucked my tail between my legs and quietly slunk away to my car for the 25 minute drive back to my apartment in Starkville.

Then something strange happened.  About five minutes after passing through the guardhouse at Old Waverly, I thought “Who in the hell does he think he is? He doesn’t know me! He doesn’t know what I can and can’t do! I’ve wanted to be a golf course architect since I was ten and I’m not going to not do it just because he says so!”  I was, for lack of a better term, fired up.  I was mad and I was going to prove I could do it.  What I didn’t realize that day was that his brutally honest reply was the proverbial “kick in the pants” I needed to prove to myself that I could do it. I would have to work harder than others if I wanted to become a golf course architect, but I would do it.

That same year, I was taking a now-defunct course called “Golf Course Architecture I” and the instructor had convinced Bob to visit the class and judge our projects in conjunction with an upcoming visit he was making to the area.  He sat through the other students’ projects as I waited for my turn.  When it came time for me to present my design, he seemed to remember me.  Rather than asking me the same rudimentary questions he had been asking the others, he immediately engaged me in an in-depth hole-by-hole discussion of the entire course I had laid out.  Everything from the routing, the combination of holes, the angles of doglegs, and the placement of bunkers to the way he liked how I routed holes diagonally across natural features.  I was flabbergasted.  He was fully engaged and spent nearly a half-hour asking me about the smallest details and offering constructive advice for things he would have done differently.  It was as if we were the only two people in the room.  I left that auditorium feeling like I could be a golf course architect after all—all because Bob Cupp acted like he thought I could.

Flash forward to Fall 2008 and I had been designing golf courses for nearly 14 years.  Unlike others who worked under established architects, I spent the first eight years of my career working for a former golf course superintendent whom Bill Colloredo introduced me to in late 1994.  The two of us built an impressive body of work for two guys who had no formal training.  By 2008, I had been on my own for nearly six years and had been blessed to add some nice renovation work to my portfolio when I stumbled across a story about a project Bob was working on.  For some reason, I felt compelled to write to Bob to let him know that his words to me in 1994 were the catalyst for inspiring me to become a golf course architect—not to say “I told you so,” but rather to say “Thank you.” I sent him a letter telling him the story of our meeting at Old Waverly and how his reaction “lit a fire beneath me” to prove him wrong—and that I would always be indebted to him for that.

A week or so later, I received an email back from Bob.  He had been in Argentina working on a project and was just catching up on getting back to people.  To paraphrase, he said that he did indeed remember me from that day at Old Waverly fourteen years earlier as well as the night he came to campus to judge our project designs and that he was encouraged by my reaction to his verbal dose of reality.  He said he only wanted to be truthful with me back then that the golf course design industry is a tough one to break into without getting my hopes up.  He would go on to write a lengthy email explaining that he had been following my career from time to time (even noting my renovation at Ole Miss GC) and offering me sage advice going forward on everything from hiring staff to being a “gentleman competitor.”  He was genuinely happy for me and how I had responded to his challenge.  To this day, I have that email framed in my office and sometimes I read it when I need a dose of inspiration.

From that point, we would correspond off and on via email and the occasional phone call and Bob became the closest thing I had to a “mentor” in the world of golf course architecture.  In 2013, he and Ron Whitten were going to discuss their new book at the Golf Industry Show in San Diego.  On that same day, I was speaking at a panel discussion hosted by the National Golf Course Owners Association across the street and told Bob I would hurry from there and try to get over to hear them speak.  In an email, he encouraged me to come by if I could, if only for a few minutes to say “Hi.” Because of the timing of the two events, I only caught the last 15 minutes of the discussion, but we had an opportunity to speak for a while afterward.  As always, he was very gracious with his time and his words of wisdom and I enjoyed the stories he told in the short time we had that day.

The next year, Bob called to ask if I was interested in joining the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA). Was I?!?!?  That was my goal since I was a boy! He would become my lead sponsor and shepherd my application through the lengthy vetting process.  That’s why I was so excited to get to the 2016 ASGCA Annual Meeting in DC this past April.  We would finally have time to sit and talk in person—both as ASGCA members—and I could ask him questions and share stories and tell him in person how much he meant to me and my career.  The first night, a member of the ASGCA staff took me to the side and told me that Bob was not going to be able to attend and why.  He had just been diagnosed with cancer.  I was speechless.  Since he was my lead sponsor, they wanted me to know, but asked me to keep it to myself.  At the time, they were only telling a handful of people.  That evening, I sent Bob an email to let him know I was thinking about him and that he and his family would be in my prayers.  I closed with a note of encouragement, telling him that I looked forward to catching up at the next annual ASGCA meeting in 2017.  Sadly, we won’t get that chance.

Bob Cupp was many things to many people. Husband, father, grandfather, golf course architect, writer, craftsman, and Renaissance man.  There are many titles that applied to him and we should all strive to be as well-rounded as Bob.  We should all be so lucky to be remembered by all as giving of our time and inspiring to others.  Our industry may have lost a huge talent, but the world lost a great person and many people lost a true friend.  To me, he was the person who was brutally honest with a college kid who had his head in the clouds and forced him to buckle down and work hard to achieve his dreams.  I cannot believe that was 22 years ago, but I am so glad I told him what he did for me.  Too often, we don’t take the time to tell those who inspire us just what they have done for us in our lives.  Bob Cupp challenged me to be the best I could be and to become a golf course architect for one reason—because I loved the game.  For that, I will always be personally indebted to him.  I only wish I had the chance to tell him so in person one last time.

 

Designs on Improving the Future of Your Course…and Your Career

The following article was written by Nathan Crace, ASGCA Assoc., at the request of the Mississippi Turfgrass Association for the May 2016 edition of MTA Magazine.  Visitors and subscribers to this blog can read it here before the magazine is published in May.

————————-

Hard to believe, but 2015 is officially in the rearview mirror.  As we pass the off ramp to New Year’s and the College Bowl Season, the exit to The Masters is only a mile away; and with the superhighway to 2016 squarely ahead of us, more news outlets are reporting that the economy is turning around and things are getting better every day.  Depending on your choice of twenty-four hour cable news coverage (and the point in the news cycle when you choose to check-in), America’s economy is either roaring back and poised to be the driving force behind a global recovery or we are hopelessly lost in a death spiral of joblessness, natural disasters, unsustainable national debt, and a staggering increase in the number of reality shows on television.  So which is it?  Are we continuing to dive headlong into the Mariana Trench of a deepening global economic abyss or have we rebounded and are now headed back toward the surface, poised to breach stronger than ever and sail on happily toward the future?  Like most stories in life, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between.

There is another option that I keep hearing muttered about on the nightly news: maybe we have found a “new normal” where malaise and stagnant wages are fine for the majority of people, so long as they can still hammer a check every two weeks.  Call me optimistic, but I think the fall stopped a while back and we are starting to rebound, ever so slightly—and not as quickly as those in Washington might want us to believe.  But a steady improvement is better than a slingshot rebound.  Of course, it might just be the new-found optimism that we see every election cycle, but things feel to have bottomed-out and are now poised to come roaring back.  Don’t misunderstand: the rocket has not left the launch pad yet, but maybe we’re almost done fueling it and the engines are warming up.  From a personal perspective, phone calls and emails to our office are ticking up with inquiries about renovations, practice facilities, and—dare I say it—new course design.  Most encouragingly, these calls are not only from existing clients who tabled their projects years ago when the economy ground to a standstill, but also new clients looking toward the future.

It’s no surprise to anyone in the golf industry that things have been slow for the past eight years.  The term “slow” might be too nice when one looks into the golf course construction industry since 2006.  According to the National Golf Foundation (NGF), 2013 marked the eighth straight year that more courses in the United States closed than opened—by a long margin.  In 2013, the NGF reports that only 14 new courses opened for play (actually up from 13.5 in 2012), but the total number that closed was 157.5.  We’ll be generous and call it a market correction of the glut of courses built in the 1990’s and early 2000’s, but that is still a large disparity.  Before you panic and start filling up the prepper pantry in your bomb shelter, there is good news.  Golfdom Magazine’s recently released annual “Golfdom Report” (January 2016) of industry insiders, golf course managers, and superintendents reveals some cautiously optimistic findings. This is important because these are the players on the inside of the industry—not just golfers, professional economists, and the news networks’ talking heads.
Of those surveyed about their expectations for the golf economy for 2016, 65% were either very optimistic or cautiously optimistic, while 23% were neutral, and 11% were slightly pessimistic.  Only 1% of respondents reported being very pessimistic about the state of the industry for 2016.  Digging deeper into the statistics, there were some reassuring stories from across the country regarding rounds of play increasing in 2015 over 2014 with expectations for that increase to continue into 2016.  Then again, the giant gorilla standing quietly in the dark corner of the room is the new Waters Of The United State (WOTUS) overreach by the EPA…but I digress.  WOTUS is a story for another time when I’m not limited to three or four pages.  That being said, the “Golfdom Report” found that WOTUS may be part of the cause for some of the pessimism in the industry as it rambles its way through the court system with the final outcome as yet unknown.  The 2016 election was also on most course managers’ minds, but respondents were evenly split on how it would impact the golf industry.

Taken as a whole (and forgetting about WOTUS for the time being), the good news is that optimism is up and pessimism is down.  What does that mean for you and your club or course?  As my college economics professor was fond of saying, “It depends.”  What it does mean, however, is that maybe it’s finally time to pull those projects you metaphorically shelved years ago from the back of the bottom drawer and dust them off.  It means it’s time to start planning for the future again and not simply maintaining the status quo.  Optimism is afoot and you don’t want to be caught watching as the aforementioned economic rocket leaves the launch pad because you didn’t take the time to pick up your spacesuit from the cleaners.

Remember those ideas you had a few years ago to re-build a green or upgrade irrigation or renovate tees or re-build bunkers because the additional maintenance was taking your staff away from other areas of the course?  It’s time to re-visit those ideas.  There may be no better time in the last seven years than now to tackle that course-wide bunker renovation program or re-build those problematic greens that you’ve been fighting for years now.  With market prices falling, golf course contractors are still looking for work for their crews and you can still lock-in significant discounts on construction compared to the pre-slowdown era.   However, as the economic engine begins to warm up and interest begins to pick up in renovations, so do the laws of supply and demand.  As the contractors find their demand and their prospects increasing, so too does their price.

Just like it’s time to reconsider those bunker, tee, green, drainage, and irrigation renovations, it’s also time to think outside the box about things you can do to improve your facility that will attract new golfers.  Over the past six years, I have designed and built seven practice facilities—including full ranges, practice greens, and (my favorite) full and comprehensive short game facilities.  It’s an odd niche that I stumbled into seemingly by mistake at first, before the epiphany that I had—in fact—come full circle.  When I was a student in Mississippi State’s Professional Golf Management (PGM) program, part of my experience and training on my cooperative internships was teaching the game to golfers and helping them improve their game and subsequent enjoyment of playing.  I naturally gravitated toward teaching the short game.

Why naturally, you ask?  Because as a child growing up in Southern Indiana, no one in my family played golf; but my parents had enough land behind their house for me to fashion a short three-hole par-3 course.  Granted, I was only 11 years old or so; but if I was going to learn how to play, it was my only real option.  So I mowed out “fairways” and “greens” with our riding lawnmower, borrowed an old 7-iron and some even older balls from a neighbor who hadn’t played in years, and began to teach myself how to play by watching Jack Nicklaus for a few hours on television each weekend.  In later years, I even added sand bunkers to my course.  Because of the short length of the course, I quickly found myself hitting more old pitching wedges and less old 7-irons.  Soon, my school-day afternoons and entire summer days consisted of shagging hundreds of balls with an old pitching wedge.  When that became boring, I started opening the face and trying to hit flop shots over trees, sheds, and neighborhood children who were brave enough to stand still for long enough.  I was first exposed to playing the game by necessity—forcing me to become creative with my short game out of boredom.  There were no 60 degree lob wedges in that day.  When I finally saved up enough money to buy a 56 degree sand wedge at K-Mart, I remember that it had a dot-punched face—not grooves.  But it was on sale and in my leaf-raking-for-income budget.  So now, some 30+ years later, I have come full circle because I have been unknowingly using those life experiences from teaching myself to hit those shots and my expertise later in life from teaching others how to hit those shots to design what I feel are the best short game practice facilities for players of all abilities and imaginations.

Practice facilities (and particularly short game facilities) are important to growing the game for a number of reasons.  Flash forward to the recent economic slowdown and more courses are looking for ways to attract new players and retain existing ones without the expense of renovating the entire course.  Likewise, golfers are looking for ways to work on their games and/or spend time with their families without having to spend four or five hours on the golf course to do it.  These higher quality practice facilities fit the bill for both golf course and golfer.  With a smaller capital investment by the course and a smaller investment in time by the golfer, an added amenity can be created that differentiates your course from the one down the street and sets you apart in a tightened marketplace.

Three such facilities (one at Annandale Golf Club in Madison, Mississippi, one at Tupelo Country Club in Tupelo, Mississippi, and one at Hattiesburg CC in Hattiesburg, Mississippi) are among the best for private clubs in the Magnolia State while Hattiesburg CC and two other facilities (at Ole Miss GC and at Mississippi State University GC) are among some of the top collegiate facilities—the short game facility at Hattiesburg CC was built in cooperation with the University of Southern Mississippi for the men’s and women’s golf teams as well as the membership.  I know what you’re thinking, and before you say “Adding areas for me to maintain won’t help my bottom line,” consider this:  a better practice facility will attract new golfers.  New golfers bring added play and revenue.  Added play and revenue necessitate a better budget.  And a better budget helps your bottom line.  The cause and effect may not be as direct as you want, but there is a real connection.  Just as there is a direct two-prong correlation between bunker renovations and cost savings/increased rounds, so too is there a relationship between better practice facilities and increased play/overall facility revenue.

Case in point is the aforementioned Tupelo Country Club.  In 2010, I was commissioned to develop a master plan for the entire golf course and existing practice facility (which at the time consisted of an undersized practice tee, a never-used chipping green, and a putting green).  During the planning and budgeting process, it was decided that the practice area would become Phase I and the golf course itself would be Phase II and completed at a later date.

Tupelo Country Club’s new chipping green is part of an award-winning practice facility.

Working with the club and course superintendent Jim Kwasinski, CGCS, we developed a plan to revitalize the driving range that included a practice tee large enough to accommodate the membership.  A new tee measuring 100’ by 285’ with internal drainage and a sand base now provides ample tee space that’s playable even immediately after a rain event with multiple target greens shaped to replicate actual greens as targets.  Additionally, a 6,500 sq ft short game green with bunkers and chipping areas and a new putting green give ample opportunity for members to work on their short games without being crowded.  But the most talked about feature of the new practice facility is by far the “Short Course” behind the driving range.  While on a site visit during master planning, Jim and I stood on the back tee of the 7^th hole looking out over an expanse of scrub and small trees behind the driving range.  The conversation went something like this:

Me: That’s a lot of wasted space.

Jim: Yep, the club almost sold it about ten years ago to a developer to make condos.

Me: It would be the perfect place for a par-3 course.

Jim: Yes it would.

[Both turn slowly to look at the other as the epiphany hits both of us simultaneously]

Jim: Why not?

Me: I need to find a piece of paper.

Soon, I was sketching out what would become unique in its simplicity of operation and complexity of design—a large expanse of fairway with two double greens and a triple green spaced within it and a handful of bunkers strategically dotted throughout.  The only things missing were tee boxes—intentionally.  I didn’t want Jim’s staff to have to stop and mow tees and move markers and I didn’t want members to feel forced to play certain holes in a certain order.  It was designed to be freeform with “the only limitation being the golfers’ imaginations” [Note to self: Write that down—I need to trademark that saying].  Want to play nine par-3 holes with your kids? Perfect.  Want to stay in one spot and work on greenside bunker shots then turn the other way and practice fairway bunker shots? Perfect.  Have an extra hour of time and you want to work on a number of short shots and wedge shots? Again, perfect.  The short course facility worked so well that it has been written about in numerous industry publications around the world and (I’ve been told) even copied by other courses after they visited Tupelo CC (I won’t name names).  At the end of the day, Jim’s staff has a few extra greens to mow and a few more acres of fairway to cut.  However, the impact on the club has been a renewed interest among golfers and a way to differentiate the club from the competition.  It’s also a great way to advertise how nice the course itself will be once Phase II is completed.

Likewise, the short game facility at Annandale GC has been a boost to the club by providing a much-needed amenity to a membership with an above-average skill set.  We transformed the old bentgrass nursery area into a spectacular facility with two chipping greens that offer varying lies, elevations, bunker shots, chipping areas, and yardages.  Additionally, one of the green contains a “putting lobe” that is adjacent to the new teaching studio where members can have a private putting lesson.  The short game facility is adjacent to the driving range, so players can practice short to long irons as well as greenside and fairway bunker shots.  Again, Annandale superintendent Al Osteen, CGCS, has two extra greens to mow and a little more fairway area to maintain, but for a relatively small investment, the club has a facility that is used daily by the membership and sets it apart from other clubs in the area.   Another important thing to note:  Al built his facility with in-house labor and one golf course shaper.  Jim’s facility was put out to bid and built by a golf course contractor—proving there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat.

The tri-lobed pitching green at Annandale in the distance and the chipping green in the foreground.

The short game facility at Hattiesburg CC is big enough to hit wedge shots from 120 yards away to an elongated green that measure more than 9,000 square feet with a separate putting green tucked away into a private corner.  Immediately adjacent to the driving range, it is not only easy to use, but beautifies the drive into the club.

If the economy is in fact about to take off and the future finally looks bright once again for the golf industry, you must be prepared and you must be ready to go when you get the call.  There’s no excuse for not doing your homework and being prepared if and when things begin to improve.  There’s practically no cost in getting prepared, but there could be huge opportunity costs in not being prepared.  Be smart, be prudent, and be ready.  Worst case scenario: the economy stays flat for another year and you have a fine-tuned set of goals and a revitalized plan to make them a reality.  With that in mind, here are three simple keys to being ready when the economic uptick finally becomes a financial jumpstart:

STAY TUNED IN/GET TUNED IN:

Stay current on current events.  This means more than reading just sports scores and keeping up with the Kardashians (you know who you are).  Take time every day to catch up on the news and know how it might impact you.  If listening to who got shot on your local news every night is more than you care to sit through during dinner, opt for a business news network.  Fox Business or CNBC, for example.  Do you know what’s going on in the petroleum markets lately?  Surely you’ve seen the difference at the pump when you go to fill up.  So you must assume that you’re not the only one to feel that rush of dopamine to your brain when a full tank now costs you $30 instead of $75.  That extra money in the collective pocket of the population translates into an increase in disposable income, including recreational spending.  Is your course ready to take advantage of that?  How about that irrigation project you’ve been putting off?  A drop in petroleum markets typically translates into a drop in the price of plastic products—like PVC pipe and drainage pipe—not only because of raw materials costs, but also transportation and shipping.  Do you have asphalt cart paths at your course?  Petroleum is a key ingredient in asphalt.  Might be time to look at replacing some of those paths your members have been complaining about.  We’ve all seen the stories of crystal meth addicts stealing copper wiring from commercial air conditioning units and trying to cash it in because the price of copper has increased so dramatically.  Did you know that innovations in irrigation like Rain Bird’s IC system drastically reduce the expense of copper wiring, not to mention the elimination of above-ground satellite controllers?  Maybe it’s time to start looking at those projects again.

More than just watching the news, ask yourself how involved you are in making news.  Are you on social media?  If you are, great!  If not, you need to be (and while you’re there, follow me @lipouts on Twitter. Trust me, it’s worth it).  That said, you need to plan ahead for how you will use your social media sounding board.  If you want to let people know what’s going on at your course and/or in your career, remember to KEEP IT PROFESSIONAL.  If you like to sound off on politics, your favorite sports team, or you can’t help but re-tweet those off-color jokes you see from your college buddies, you really need two separate accounts: one personal and one professional.  And since not many things in this day and age will sink a career quicker than a series of ill-conceived (or late-night drunken) tweets, do yourself a favor and use TWO DIFFERENT APPS on your phone to differentiate between accounts and help avoid the potentially career-ending accidental tweet.  Don’t add yourself to the list of teachers, small business owners, and US Congressmen who have found themselves suddenly unemployed because they sent a tweet using the wrong account or sent a tweet for public consumption that they mistakenly thought was a direct message.

And while we’re at it, if you don’t know what a tweet is or if you’re confused by the previous sentence’s mention of the terms “tweet” and “direct message,” stay off of Twitter until you have a chance to study up.   Better yet, find the nearest 14 to 22 year-old and ask him or her to explain it to you in layman’s terms.  Your son/daughter and/or grandson/granddaughter and/or his/her friends should suffice.  The same goes for Facebook, blogs, and other forms of social media.  Just like other advances in technology during the course of your career, don’t be left behind just because the changes don’t make you feel warm and fuzzy.  But remember, unlike the upgrade from hydraulic to electric irrigation, what you do on social media can potentially haunt you for the rest of your career if you’re not careful.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK:

You know your bunkers are in awful shape.  You know they have long surpassed the average useful life of sand bunkers (5 to 7 years for the sand, 5 to 10 years for the drainage, and 7 to 15 years for the bunkers themselves, depending on your climate and soil types) and you know you could actually save money on labor and materials by renovating the bunkers and better using the time you spend after every rain (pushing sand back up onto the faces and cleaning out the sediment that washes down and contaminates the sand) for other projects.  So start doing your homework now and research what options are best for you.  The same goes for irrigation, drainage, tees, greens renovations, etc.  When the time comes and the General Manager or the President of the Board stops you at work to ask you about capital projects, think of the satisfaction you’ll have from responding “Actually, I just updated a spreadsheet with some comparisons of cost benefit analysis and the savings from the renovations we need. I’ll email it to you before lunch.”  And think about the missed opportunity if your answer to “What do we need to do on the golf course?” is “Hmmm, I haven’t thought about it in a while.  Things have been pretty slow.  Let me think about it and get back to you” or “We need to renovate the greens, but I have no idea how much it would actually cost.”

PLAN AHEAD:

It’s never too early to start planning.  Just as you plan your budget, plan your family vacation, plan your retirement, or plan your fantasy football league, start by writing things down.  Multiple studies have shown that the success rates of individuals who write down goals and re-visit them are exponentially higher than individuals who only think about their goals.  And seek out advice from those professionals who can help you the most.  As a member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA), I spend a lot of time fielding calls with potential clients and answering their questions regarding which direction they should be headed.  Part of my job is helping superintendents prioritize improvements to their courses and package them into a well thought-out and organized proposal with real world numbers and time lines.  Most ASGCA members (myself included) will make a site visit and spend some time helping you prepare this information with very little initial cost to help you get the ball rolling.  We know that with the right data and information at your disposal, your chances of successfully navigating the politics involved within your club are greatly increased.  Again, we do this for the growth of the game and because the industry is strongest when we are able to work together to advance the success and sustainability of the game. So pick up that phone or click that mouse or swing by PetSmart and pick up that new carrier pigeon you’ve had your eye on, and reach out to us so we can help you get the thought process started.  A wise man once said “It’s never too early to start planning, but it might be too late to catch up.”  In the interest of full disclosure, no one told me that—I just made it up [Note to self: Write that one down too and trademark it with the “limitation/imagination” one from earlier].

———————–

Nathan Crace, ASGCA Assoc., is an associate member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects (ASGCA).  He is also a member of the Golf Writers’ Association of America and a published author.  You can follow Nathan’s insight into golf and other topics on Twiiter @lipouts.  For more information on Nathan, visit www.nathancrace.com or www.watermarkgolf.com/design and for more information on the ASGCA, visit www.asgca.org  

 

 

 

What Can Brown Do For You? An Examination of what the US Open at Restored Pinehurst #2 Does (and Does Not) Mean for Your Course.

If you were one of the millions of people watching the US Open from Pinehurst #2 this year, you surely noticed that the course did not look like the typical US Open venue we have grown so accustomed to over the past, oh, 114 years. And if you didn’t notice the change, then the on-air talent, analysts, USGA staff, and producers from the Golf Channel, ESPN, and NBC were sure to remind you—over and over and over again.  Don’t misunderstand.  I’m all for restoring classic courses, growing the game of golf, and finding more sustainable ways to design and operate golf courses.  That being said, some of the media hyperbole surrounding the exemplary work that Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw did to Donald Ross’s seminal piece of work bordered on the absurd. In my humble opinion, some people marginalized the goals that Coore, Crenshaw, and the staff at Pinehurst accomplished by focusing too much on the browned-out condition of the turf and how “wonderful” it looked on the small screen in our living rooms…ad nauseum.

Don’t take my word for it.  The people I saw on my television were practically giddy about how bad the course looked and on Sunday afternoon, the onslaught of “brown is beautiful” erupted into a good ol’ fashioned Twitter back-and-forth between Golf Channel’s Matt Ginella and no less than Donald Trump himself.  The Donald said he would not let the USGA do to his course what they had done to Pinehurst #2 and that the course looked horrible on TV.  He went on to name a number of his own courses that he claimed were better than the “new” Pinehurst #2.  To his credit, Ginella tried to diplomatically sort out the top-ranked courses and keep the hashtag discussion civil, but a good number of other people on Twitter jumped at the opportunity to pile-on Trump, while still others sided with him and his opinion.

If you missed the spin, the talking points heard on-air can be summed up in a nutshell herewith: a browned-out burned-up course with single row irrigation, no “rough,” 50 acres of waste areas, and playing 7,500 yards from the tips with turtleback greens that won’t hold a wedge shot from the world’s best players is the future of the game.  You say you didn’t know that?  Me either.  For those who spoke as though there is no middle ground between the cathedral of American golf that is Augusta National and what we saw at Pinehurst over the weekend is at best naïve and at worst disingenuous.  Let’s look at just a few of the key points we heard from Pinehurst:

1. “The new single row irrigation system at Pinehurst #2 cut the watering requirements in half and saved 40 million gallons of water each year.”  Single row irrigation is nothing new and many of you may play on older courses with single row irrigation still today.  As I noted on Twitter during the #USOpen, we were installing single row systems just 15 years ago in designs in Mississippi and Louisiana—not to save on water, but because we were building entire golf courses for roughly $1 million.  That being said, it’s not the most desirable means of irrigating a golf course—unless you want unhealthy turf everywhere except a roughly 85’ radius around each of the heads in the middle of the fairway.  Try driving up and down those struggling fairways with 50 to 80 golf carts a day in the middle of summer and the “awesome natural look” of the brown turf will quickly become the “awful natural look” of brown dirt.  Turf on golf courses needs water for the same reason you and I need water—to survive.  There are more sensible solutions for your course than starving half of it from irrigation, such as single row irrigation from the tees to the landing areas, then double row irrigation to the green.  That sensible approach, coupled with an irrigation audit and smarter irrigation programming, can cut water usage dramatically without burning up your course. Yes it can. I’ve seen it done many times over.  One one-air personality at the US Open went so far as to say that the water savings in the first year at Pinehurst paid for the entire cost of the renovations! I’d like some confirmation of that statement because I find it hard to believe—unless the Pinehurst Resort was actually buying water from the Village of Pinehurst’s municipal water supply to irrigate the course before the restoration. Of course, I could be wrong…
2. “Brown is beautiful.” No it’s not. Not in America. At least not turf burned brown to the precipice of turf loss.  This statement is not good, bad or indifferent.  It’s just the way things are in America. Tan, however, is a very attractive look that contrasts nicely with green and looks both natural and healthy.  British Open venues that are more tan than green look great! Partly because that’s what we’ve come to expect from them.  They also have different soils and turf types that the vast majority of courses on this side of the pond do not enjoy and many below the Mason-Dixon line cannot have and/or afford to maintain (see “Conversion of Bentgrass Putting Greens to Ultradwarf Bermuda” for more information).  But generally speaking, Americans like their courses more green than brown and I doubt the “look” that Pinehurst #2 had from overhead on TV will be what the majority of American golfers want in my lifetime.  I’m not advocating spending millions of dollars on extravagant irrigation systems that water every nook and cranny of a golf course—quite the opposite actually.  But if the goal is to “grow the game,” I don’t see how starving a course of water to the point of near turf loss from desiccation coupled with greens that won’t hold an approach shot from the world’s best players is going to accomplish it.  Let us not forget the Law of Unintended Consequences.  I’m sure that Alexander Graham Bell never thought you could accidently call someone by sitting on his invention (the telephone for those of you who didn’t know).  Likewise, I’m fairly sure that turning people off to the game by advocating that courses cut water back to the point that fairways are dirt and greens are so hard to hold that the best in world can’t do itis not what the USGA is hoping for by hyping less conditioning.
3. “It looks great because there’s no rough anymore!”  It may not have been “rough” in the traditional sense of a US Open, but the huge swaths of waste areas and native sandy scrub looked pretty rough to me.  Sure you don’t have to water it like turf, but it’s also not a one-size-fits-all solution for every course in America.  There also appeared to be as many broadleaf weeds as there were wiregrass plants in the newly reclaimed native areas that I saw.  Also consider that the native sandy well-drained soils in and around the region of Pinehurst, North Carolina work great for that natural look.  But try pulling that off in heavy clay or poorly-drained soils in other areas of the country, and you’ll have a hodge-podge of every weed known to man in less than a year.  That’s because every agronomist knows that the best defense against weeds is a thick canopy of healthy turf that helps keep sunlight away from the weed seeds that are waiting to germinate.  Again, I personally like the new look of the natural areas at Pinehurst and I’m a big advocate for reducing bunkers on golf courses because they are so expensive to maintain.  In fact, I once completed a bunker renovation for a course in Arkansas that cut the overall square feet of bunkers by nearly 50% without changing the playability or challenge of the course.  It takes time to study it and some common sense, but it can be done and it’s a great way to save on your maintenance budget.  That being said, I like the theory of the waste areas along the edges of the fairways at Pinehurst #2 because they do not have to be maintained like bunkers.  But again, it won’t work for everyone and some maintenance is still needed in those areas.  It’s less maintenance, not maintenance-free—a fact seemingly lost on some of the on-air talent. 
4. “This will help grow the game because it’s less expensive to maintain and will therefore make golf more accessible due to lower green fees.”  The argument sounds like a sensible one and from a strictly ECON 101 point of view seems like it would work.  But for all the talk of how much water Pinehurst #2 was saving after the restoration, what I didn’t hear was how much the maintenance budget had been reduced.  I would like to know because any superintendent will tell you that the most expensive line item in the golf course maintenance budget is the same as any other business—labor.  And I would suspect that even if there was a savings in overall costs, the maintenance budget at  post-renovation Pinehurst #2 would still make many of the Greens Committee members of America’s others courses from coast to coast choke on their member assessments—notwithstanding preparations for the US Open.  To prove my point, look no further than the cost to play Pinehurst #2: a paltry $420 (no that’s not a typo).  Before I get emails trying to explain supply and demand economics to me, save your time.  I understand it.  It’s just tough to square the argument being made that the new look of Pinehurst will make golf more affordable—everywhere except Pinehurst, that is.

To sum up, I love what Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw did at Pinehurst #2.  As a rule, I typically don’t like when fellow golf architects channel dead architects from beyond the grave, but Coore and Crenshaw didn’t do that.  They used old photos and research to restore the 40+ acres of native sand scrub that had been filled in with turf over the latter half of the last century.  No Ouija Boards, just research and a lot of time studying history. Granted, a full-on restoration to the “original” Pinehurst would have seen flat oiled-sand greens like the ones in place from 1907 to 1934, but that would’ve just been silly…or would it?  The restoration cut back on water usage and that’s great.  They gave the course back what it once had by turning back the clock 100 years ago and that’s great too.  In fact, I can’t wait to see the course in person again. And if the coverage of the US Open helped further awareness of the need to make golf more sustainable and more affordable, then that’s great too.

What bothered me about the coverage was the extent to which everyone from the USGA to the folks from the television networks tried to force-feed the American golfer how beautiful a burned up course really is and hint that if your course doesn’t look like Pinehurst #2, you are doing something wrong.  That undermines the great work done by Coore and Crenshaw.  It’s one of the best restoration projects I’ve ever seen and it’s a shame for others to politicize it.  That being said, if we really want to grow the game and make courses sustainable, we have to find a common middle ground somewhere in the middle of perfectly pristine and burned to a crisp.  In an extremely unscientific poll I conducted among golfers in the 19^th hole at the course I play, all except one said if given a choice they would rather play a course that looked like Augusta National than a course that looked like Pinehurst #2. Again, unscientific, but it’s an interesting point.

To quote a famous frog, “It ain’t easy being green.”  But in America, for now at least, the browned-out look of Pinehurst is still seen as more the novelty and Augusta National as the shining city on a hill. Can everyone be Augusta? Of course not. In fact, no one can. Can everyone be Pinehurst #2. Of course not. Not everyone wants or needs to be.  But the way to grow the game is somewhere in the middle (if admittedly more toward the Pinehurst end of the spectrum than the Augusta end).  New strains of turf take decades to fine tune for golf, but people are working all the time on turf that requires less water without sacrificing quality.  What we need in the meantime are more courses built with sensible budgets that reduce maintained turf in a practical way and can conserve water—not starve the turf of it—while creating playable holes with receptive greens and fewer oversized and out of control bunkers.  It’s the same philosophy I’ve been preaching for 20 years now and can be summed up with this: to be successful, courses need to be aesthetically pleasing, less expensive to maintain, and—most importantly—fun to play!  But only you can decide if that means that brown is beautiful to you.  Not someone on television. Or even someone writing a column in a golf magazine. Or a blog…

 

“The Short Game Doctor”

Before Christmas, I did an interview with BackSpin Magazine for the March issue about growing the game by designing and building short game facilities. They did a great job to keep it informative and fun to read. It just hit news stands and there’s an online version on their web site.

Click here to read “The Short Game Doctor” on BackSpin’s web site.

 

Resurrecting Donald Ross…again

“Resurrecting Donald Ross”

By: Nathan Crace    Date: August 28, 2007/August 28, 2013

The following is a re-print of my original column with the same title that was published exactly six years ago today, with some revised content for today’s reader:

It’s no secret to those who read this column on a regular basis that I am of that group of individuals who believe the unbridled advances in golf technology in the past 15+ years (specifically the ball, the driver, and the newer wedges) have damaged the game of golf and endangered the classic courses of the past by rendering them defenseless against the long ball and the “bomb and gouge” approach.  But recently, I have also been watching more and more of the classic courses working to “restore” themselves to their former glory.  And as with any other niche industry, there are a number of smart golf course architects making a name for themselves by channeling the deceased architects of the glory days while they restore these courses.

I’m the last person to second-guess another architect because (by the very nature of what we do) there is no one right way to renovate or design a golf course.  It’s their project, let them do as they wish and leave the second-guessing to the pundits.  But I do wonder why there is such a rabid fervor by some club members and owners to put courses exactly back to the way they originally were.  While in my opinion, a properly designed/built/managed golf course is a work of art, is it not Michelangelo’s Statue of David or a Van Gogh painting.  Those can be restored.  Golf courses are organic living things that change and adapt over the years.  One of the reasons the game itself is so unique is that each course is unique and that creates diversity.  So why do we want to keep courses the way they were or spend millions in a futile attempt to turn back time?  Is it for the nostalgia? For the history? For the assumed wishes of the original architect? 

Enter the “ghost whisperers.”  Most will use old sketches or photos of the course in question or maybe even the original construction drawings that were found in the footlocker of the original club president when his great grandson was cleaning out the old family stable.  They spend a lot of time to painstakingly recreate what used to be there and resurrect the designs of Donald Ross, Tillinghast, MacDonald, MacKenzie, Colt….the list goes on and on.  To their credit, most do an excellent job of re-creating the features to the way they used to be and should be commended for their ability to do so.  But my question is this: Is that really the best thing to do in every situation for every old course?  Would is really be what they want?  And by “they,” I mean the original architects.  One of my favorite lines I keep hearing repeated is: “I’ve renovated so many [insert dead architect’s name here] courses, I know what he was thinking.”  Really?

I must profess that I am a student of the history of the game and love the rich history of the architects of the past 100 years and I am awed by what they achieved with limited resources.  That being said, my job is to respect the past while looking toward the future—not looking over my shoulder to appease the dead.  Not to sound aloof, but the client hires me to renovate a golf course and make it aesthetically pleasing, easier to maintain, and fun to play again.  Things have changed in the past 30, 50, 100 years since the course was originally built and for many courses, there can be room for debate regarding whether or not the dead architect credited with a certain design did more than make a site visit once—if at all.  One architect in particular, whose pinnacle was after the Great Depression, is credited with nearly 300 designs! In an age without jet travel, staffs of design associates, or bulldozers—and considering he passed away in his 60’s (early by today’s standards)—that would be an incredibly grueling work load.  But I digress.  Not only have changes in golf equipment changed the game, but improvements in agronomics have also made drastic changes to the older courses by improving the quality of turf. 

Which brings us to the core point of my theory:  The men who designed the courses so famous from the past “glory days” of golf course architecture were obviously intelligent men who understood the game and how to fit a course to the land they had at their disposal.  They were not stupid people.  Therefore, I have to believe that if we could magically resurrect these great architects and show them the way the game and the industry has evolved, they would not want to “restore” their courses to the way they were.  They would want to help them evolve and adapt.  Enlarge the greens, perhaps soften some contours and change bunker styling, add and expand tees, etc.  Pinehurst’s greens were originally sand, not grass.  And the courses with turf for putting surfaces most certainly were not running 9 to 12 feet on a Stimpmeter—which was invented in 1935 because Edward Stimpson thought the greens at the US Open that year at Oakmont were unfairly fast!  Most greens in those days (the US Open notwithstanding) were more akin to the fairways of some of the better courses of today.  Who do you know that would settle for putting on the fairway at your course?  Greens in their day had to be humpbacked to assist in drainage and subsequently were not receptive to approach shots.  If you were to reconstruct a green from the 1930’s and mow it to stimp at 13, it would be so small and fast that you would never be able to keep a ball on the green. 

So the next time you see where an architect has been hired to return an old Donald Ross course to “exactly the way it was in the original photos,” ask yourself what Mr. Ross would think given today’s game of golf.  There’s a difference between respecting some of the original design elements in the context of today’s game and trying to create an exact replica of what once was, but restoring the course of yesterday may actually do a disservice to the game and is shortsighted given the advances in technology.  History is to be appreciated and I hate more than anyone when a classic course is forced to change by adding hundreds of yards or dozens of bunkers simply to defend against technology.  Evolution of a golf course is a natural progression that should be embraced and properly planned—not retroactively regenerated.  That is unless we will all be playing these “new” old courses with hickory-shafted niblicks and gutta-percha golf balls.  There are, of course, exceptions to my theory as there are with other theories, and the recent Coore-Crenshaw renovation of Pinehurst #2 is an example of restoring certain facets of the original course while respecting both the original design and the needs of the future—including the removal of acres of grown-over turf, replacing it instead with the native sandy soil and wiregrass for rough.  But notice they still have turf on the greens instead of a sand surface, internal drainage in the greens, and an automated irrigation system.  Yet something tells me Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore understood what the course needed for the future without dismissing the past.  And they didn’t walk the course consulting a Ouija board to make it happen…

Copyright 2007/Revised 2013 Nathan Crace.  Nathan Crace (on Twitter @lipouts) is an award-winning golf course architect, published author, and member of the Golf Writers Association of America.  You can purchase his book “Lipouts, The Best I Could Do From the First Two Years” from Moonbay Media on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and in the iTunes Bookstore. 

 

Anchors “A-Way” — the USGA bans anchored putting

The following was written for the June 2013 premier issue of the new Backspin Magazine (www.backspinmag.com).  This is a sneak peek.

_______________________________________

             The USGA has officially dropped the hammer on the anchor.  Across the country, young players who’ve never putted with a 35” flat stick are dazed and confused while older players with shaky hands who have found refuge from the yips with the assistance of a broomstick are congregating in 19^th holes and drinking like soldiers in a Civil War field hospital waiting for the doctor to operate.  I don’t have a dog in the fight (personally) because I prefer the opposite approach—my putter is cut down to 32.5” because I like to extend my arms fully when putting—and I think it’s unfair to judge others based on the size of their equipment.  I’ve used a short putter since my high school golf days in Indiana eons ago when woods were actually wood and balls were full of miles of rubber bands and covered with balata (pronounced bah-lah-tah for you youngsters).  I do, however, find humor in the debate much the same as I find humor in anything where people draw arbitrary lines for the sake of…well, drawing arbitrary lines.

            On one side, there are the “traditionalists” who claim that anchoring a club against one’s body takes the skill out of the stroke and is essentially a crutch for those who struggle with putting.  Most stop short of calling it cheating, but if this were 1913 instead of 2013 and we weren’t all so politically correct I think there would be plenty of public name-callin’and finger-pointin’.  But seriously, could you imagine Bobby Jones with a putter jammed into his sternum?  It gives me the creeps just thinking about it. 

          One the other side, there are those claiming that loosening the rules helps to “grow the game” by making is more accessible and more fun.  For years, I’ve countered that the unintended consequence of “growing the game” in this manner has actually been making it less accessible.  Drivers and balls that fly farther have caused courses to be designed and built longer, necessitating the need for additional land, renovating great older courses, driving up the costs, and passing those costs along to the end user.  Take a couple of decades, factor in supply out-pacing demand with the perfect storm of a down economy plus a dose of busted housing bubble and more courses are now closing than opening.  But I digress….

            I remember when Bernhard Langer started bracing the grip of his putter against his forearm in the early 1990’s to settle his putting stroke and everyone whispered that he would never be the same again.  Remember when Rocco Meditate started using a long putter and the old guard could not believe what they were seeing?  He started using it because of back problems, but his success with it brought it to the attention of others battling similar maladies.  Then someone struggling with short putts started using a long putter by bracing it against his stomach or chest to create a pendulum stroke with no wrist action.  Now there are major champions (read Keegan Bradley and Webb Simpson) who have always used long putters since their days as junior golfers.

            So just as the USGA is apt to do, they now ride in to town after sunset while the buildings are ablaze and announce that there might be trouble headed this way.  Much like the failure to read the tea leaves of balls that travel like Tomahawk cruise missiles and driver faces with more spring in their step than a young Sergio Garcia at Medinah when Tiger may have actually had a reason to worry about playing him head-to-head, the USGA is about 10 years (give or take a biennial) too late in the anchoring ruling. Their ban on 60 degree wedges is due out in 2016…

            Do I think bracing a putter against your stomach cheapens the game and gives you an unfair advantage over me? Not really. Notwithstanding players who grew up playing with a long putter, I think if you are using a long putter for any reason other than back problems, then you probably have more mental bats in your golf-psyche belfry than you know what to do with anyway.  However, what I do think is ridiculous is some of the hypocrisy surrounding the issue.  Like a certain PGA Tour player (whom I’ve always respected) who just a few years ago demanded that the USGA and R&A immediately ban belly putters, who did call those who used them “cheaters,” who then started using one himself, who later won a major with said putter, and who—when asked about his earlier statements—used the excuse that he would “keep cheating like the rest of them” while long putters were legal.  That is what cheapens the game.

Copyright 2013 Nathan Crace.  Nathan Crace (on Twitter @lipouts) is an award-winning golf course architect, published author, and member of the Golf Writers Association of America.  You can purchase his book “Lipouts, The Best I Could Do From the First Two Years” from Moonbay Media on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and in the iTunes Bookstore.  Nathan appears in  Backspin by special arrangement.

 

An Eye for An Eye

I spent Sunday afternoon with members of the high school golf team I coach playing a practice round and preparing for the South State golf championship to be held a week from Monday. A lot of things have changed in the 20+ years since I’ve played high school golf. In addition to the obvious changes in technology and the way junior golfers these days know how to use these advances to their benefit, there’s a new piece of equipment that I see more and more at each tournament we play.

Not to date myself, but when I was in high school, the big advance in technology for golf clubs was the Taylor Made Burner Plus metal wood. It looks like a hybrid compared to today’s monster 460 cc drivers, but compared to the persimmon that we were playing at the time it might as well have been the space shuttle. Then came lightweight carry bags to replace the old leather bags we used to lug around and for those who could afford it, there was the balata-covered Titleist Professional ball and the then-new Maxfli HT.

But for today’s junior golfers, the hot new piece of equipment is neither a club nor a ball. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the act of actually hitting the ball or playing a shot. Today every aspiring young junior golfer seems to have a laser rangefinder in his or her bag.

At first, I thought it was humorous to see four golfers walking down the fairway, approaching their balls, and dropping their stand bags to the ground to reach in and pull out the rangefinders. They would then spend a good 10 to 15 seconds bracing their elbows to their chest and holding the rangefinder in front of their face like a birdwatcher spotting some rare yellow-breasted-duck-billed-triple-toed Siamese warbler in order to shoot the yardage to the flag. It was almost like it had become a part of the pre-shot routine. They never gave a thought to a sprinkler head or yardage marker. They didn’t need to–it was all in the palm of their hands.

You would literally see nearly every top junior golfer at some of these events standing there next to their bag like they were spotting for a Navy SEAL sniper–getting the yardage to the target and adjusting for wind. Unfortunately, most of these kids aren’t remotely as accurate as our nation’s finest and this target doesn’t even move or duck for cover.

After watching one of my players routinely fly the green with his approach shots for three holes in a row, I walked up to his bag while he was putting and removed the rangefinder. When he asked me why I was taking it, I told him that I didn’t think he knew how to use it. Turns out I was right.

A little questioning revealed that he wasn’t looking for a yardage marker or a sprinkler head, getting his yardage, and then using the rangefinder to zero in on the target. He was depending solely on the rangefinder and instead of shooting the flag, he was shooting the trees behind the green.

When I was playing high school golf, my goal was just to get the ball in the middle of the green. If I happened to miss it a little bit and it got closer to the pin, I just acted like that’s what I was trying to do. But like so many amateurs who insist on a pin sheet for a normal round of golf with their friends, some of these juniors think they can dial it in like Rory or Phil.

Don’t get me wrong, I want people to hit it is close to the pin as they can. It makes the game more enjoyable and speeds up play. I just don’t think most amateurs are as proficient in their shotmaking skills as they think they are just because they have a rangefinder. They still have to hit the shot and for most people who play the game, walking a yardage from a sprinkler head to their ball to get the distance to the center of the green is just as helpful/accurate as spending the time to use the rangefinder and hopefully picking up the right target.

To test my theory during Sunday’s practice round, I would routinely guess yardages by what I call “ocular engineering” (eyeballing it) and/or using a sprinkler head and my own two legs and then ask my players what yardage they found with the rangefinders. I was always within five yards but that didn’t seem to matter to them and their technology.

This is a sample of but one of many exchanges:
“164 yards,” I said.
“Nope,” was one reply. “161.”

Finally I explained to them that the difference of 3 yards was barely more than the height of the flag stick and if nine feet made that much difference in the way they were going to play the shot from 161 yards out, then they didn’t need to be playing high school golf. It was time to pack away the books and head off to Q school.

Of course I doubt if any of these kids will pack away the rangefinders. And I don’t mind that they use them when the rules permit. I just want them to realize it is a tool to supplement their talent and it shouldn’t become a crutch. They need to use it to verify a yardage and not become dependent on it. And of course if the battery runs out during a round, it’s always nice to know how big a stride in your step equals one yard.