Jon,
I went back and carefully reread the string of posts once you joined the conversation. I don't find anything in your posts that is anything more than one sentence sound bites of dissension against sound reasoning from Bradley, PGert, and R Decker. I'm am not saying that you don't have knowledge, but even in the context of comparing GB&I turf to turf in the northern areas of the US, I stand by my assertion that your argument is invalid. I can't think of many variables that impacts turf more than the edaphological influence of the turf system. You don't think whether a cool season grass is grown in clay vs. loam vs. sand is notable?
Check that, there is one variable that matches soil in importance. Temperature. Temperature impacts just about everything. It affects whether the most suitable turf for a given area is a C3 or C4 grass. C3 grasses--as you know--lose water much more readily in warm weather than do their C4 cousins. Once air and soil temps exceed a certain threshold (which is variable), stomata in the plant close to prevent water loss, photorespiration becomes an issue. Due to photorespiration, photosynthetic capacity diminishes by as much as 30%. This impacts all aspects of plant growth--or in very hot conditions like you would see during a typical northern US summer--greatly degrades root growth and efficiency of energy transfer. Bradley's chart above is a perfect example of just how different the temps in the northern US are for 3-4 months a year as compared to our friends in GB&I.
Combine the adverse impacts of photorespiration in C3 grasses with the tight (and by tight I mean more micro pores and less water/air for the plant as compared to sand) soil conditions associated with clay soils, and you see why the northern US summer is far different than the conditions experienced by GB&I.
This isn't all to say that our fairways in the US are unmaintainable. But it illustrates why when players and memberships expect green conditions, relatively large amounts of inputs are required. I agree with Mike Young (and by default Pat Mucci's recent arguments) that agronomic expectations are by far the biggest culprit in this entire debate. I have no doubt that if turf professionals in the US were given marching orders to provide a firmer, off color, slightly less turgid surfaces, they could.