We were there from '96-'06. I can still picture him in the pro shop during his time there.

It's actually depressing to go to Mid Pines and see the overseed in the winter when on a Pinehurst trip -- just wet all the time and honestly looks maybe better in photos but not on the ground

What years were you at Greystone? My dad was the head pro there from '95 - '01

Growing up in the Southeast playing the future 3 egger Greystone Founders (Regions Tradition) they used to overseed the fairways in the winter but stopped. We ended up having a couple weird Springs weather wise where the temperature hit a zone to where the Rye wasn't being killed off and the Bermuda was coming in but not thriving. The competition in Spring led to poor turf conditions over the Summer so they eventually stopped. Made the course conditions year round better and I'm sure reduced maintenance costs as they did not have to water/mow in the off season.

A fantastic re-listen, thanks for the suggestion. Geez, 2020, time flies. If I'm being honest, I find John Jeffreys' insistence that it's what the customers want a bit confusing. I know I always have to remember that I'm in a niche corner of golf, but it seems like a classic "tyranny of the minority" as illustrated by Nassim Taleb (my favorite economics writer): https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15#.z5ry4bucq The idea being that even if the majority of golfers are environmentally conscious, and fine with brown, so long is these environmentally conscious golfers don't punish water waste, the "green is good" folks will, and so change won't happen (with paint being the obvious compromise). That rational leaves me with a bleak outlook on all manner of "expectations" driving the industry.

I obviously agree that motley, natural fairways are beautiful, and definitely understand the resistance to using paint. But the fact that PINEHURST (!) of all places has found a way not to over-seed its most famous course strikes me as utterly miraculous. I give them a lot of credit for going that far, even if they don't feel they can go all the way because of their position as a mass-market resort. Not sure if you caught this when we released it, but I did a narrated podcast episode a few years back on the American pursuit of perfect turf: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0qzCU31F7ewXlrGcHKYrdG?si=0904e61b1d9a4c6f I talked to Pinehurst's superintendent in that episode about the choice to paint instead of over-seed. Thought it was a really interesting convo.

Nice, Pinehurst for the win! The idea of paint is an interesting one. I'm obviously very much in support of it, but it's a strange compromise between the "brown is beautiful" we often hear, and the reality of current expectations. It just seems, at the same time, entirely unnecessary and counterproductive. As someone who grew up playing, and is very fond of, dormant bermuda the whole concept of "golf should be green" has always seemed deeply strange to me. I look at the photos of Aiken GC from the your course profile and the yellowed fairways immediately remind me of where I learned to play. And I think they look quite beautiful in contrast to the greens.

I haven't been to Brambles yet, but yes, I do think it's a contender for three-Egg status. I've played Austin Golf Club and like it very much. The natural conditioning is probably its strongest suit. Not a three-Egg course, though, in my opinion. Pinehurst No. 2 doesn't over-seed (they paint, which has far less of an environmental impact), and we have it as a three-Egger. There are also a number of sand-based and links courses that might deserve three Eggs and meet the standard of organic and low-input maintenance you're gesturing toward. Ballyneal comes to mind. Plus a bunch of places in Scotland, of course.

I mean, it's tough to say. Off the top if my head, Brambles and Austin Golf Club are both using more drought tolerant zoysias. I haven't played either, but they seem like real contenders.

Which ones deserve it?