The Golf-Course Architect: Mike Hurdzan

You do?
Oh, yeah, absolutely. It's costly, it's time-consuming and it uses too many resources. We're seeing it happen.

There's no argument that dormant grass that gets a lot of traffic could be damaged or killed?
No. It's dormant. It'll heal. And dormant grass that is not overseeded will come back to life in the spring faster than grass that has been overseeded -- overseeding retards the re-establishment of the natural grasses.

A lot of course owners in places like Las Vegas would say that if they didn't overseed, their revenue would take a massive nose dive.
I concur that that's what most operators would say. If you asked golfers 20 years ago if they would consider playing on a golf course that's not all green, they would probably have said no. But if you asked golfers today, and explained that it's saving millions of gallons of water, they'd probably say, "Yeah, I would do that." They'd say, "Well, you know it might not be as green as I'd like, but it's good enough, and the game is still fun, and we saved all that water." You know, I've heard sociologists talk about the effect the color green has on people. Some say that we're just hardwired to appreciate green, back to the days of the savanna when we were learning to walk on two legs. But I think that the American golfer is becoming more sophisticated and recognizing that golf on firm, fast playing conditions is probably more enjoyable than playing on lush, green conditions. It becomes a much more cerebral game -- it isn't just yard darts where you hit it out there and the ball stops. Now you have to land the ball and think, OK, the ball's going to release and run 30 yards; where do I want the ball to land?

So you think golfers' tastes are changing a little bit and getting away from the Augusta look?
I definitely think that. The USGA, for example, has taken such an interest in Erin Hills, a fescue course with bent-grass greens that will have the playing conditions that you find in Great Britain. [Note: It was designed by the Hurdzan-Dana Fry partnership and Golf Digest's Ron Whitten.] Previously USGA events were always played on very highly manicured courses. Now they're more inclined to go to a Shinnecock or a Newport or an Erin Hills, because they recognize that golf in those kinds of conditions is a better brand of golf. I think that's helping to shift the emphasis. When we gussy up a course too much, we lose some of its natural beauty. Take the natural beauty of a lovely Irish lass, for instance -- if she puts too much makeup and jewelry on, some of the real beauty is masked. When we make a golf course all one continuous sea of green, we lose some of that natural variety. The best photographs of golf courses always have lots of changes in color and texture and elevation; those are the things that make courses visually interesting. When we water them and mow them and make them verdant green all over, they lose that texture.

What about the practice of painting the dormant turf green instead of overseeding?
It's an old technique that's coming back. It's a very good practice, very intelligent. You use a dye that goes down into the leaf structure of the plant itself. Sometimes you have to apply it twice or three times over the winter, but it's relatively inexpensive, and the impact is minimal.

Any other innovations?
We're going to keep developing better grasses that require less water, pesticide, fertilizer; that's the trend. Seashore paspalum is the biggest miracle in the last 10 or 15 years. You can irrigate it with seawater, and it will do perfectly well in some climates. People are going to figure out how to take this grass and start to grow it farther and farther north, so pretty soon we might have paspalum growing in Maine. We've really just begun with this stuff. We're going to develop better non-synthetic pesticides that have a more natural base. We're going to see all sorts of other technological innovations. GPS-controlled mowers, for instance, so golf courses can be mowed at night, without an operator. There are going to be a lot of changes.

You've said that you hope to see American golf courses achieve the same lack of environmental impact as they had in 1920. What was the impact in those days, and is it possible to go back to that?
Yes, it is possible. We had very few or no synthetic chemicals back then. The golfers' perception of the golf courses was much different. I think we can achieve the same playing conditions we have now but with the environmental impact of the 1920s, and we'll do it with technology. Let's say that golf in Old Tom Morris' day was about as natural as could possibly be. There was no environmental impact. So we'll give that a score of 100 out of 100. In the 1920s it might have been at 80. In the 1950s and the 1960s, it might have been at about the 40 level. Now we're heading back up again. We're at the 70 or 75 level now, and I think we'll get back up to that 80 or 90.