[DWhite]

If your golf course is in good condition with single row irrigation down the middle of your fairways; if your fairways do have grass(which typically meets membership standards) with overseeded rye during the non-summer months and common bermuda during the summer; then why would you spend approximately 500 grand to construct double-row irrigation. Exactly, how does double-row irrigation improve your golf course?
I have heard of the following rationales: "Weed control" in the rough is one, but that is not a compelling argument.
The next rationale has many ironies:  If you have single row irrigation down the center of your fairways, then you can actually alter your rough lines "in house" as you see fit. However, if you have double-row irrigation constructed down your rough lines, then the location, routing and width of your fairways will be set and permanent.

This brings up different issues though. Now you have to determine the architects' original fairway routings in order to reasonably know where to construct both rows of waterlines. Any variation would constitute a renovation instead of a restoration. As soon as the location and routing of the fairways are established, the width of the fairways must be determined. Well, the classic design maintained wide-open playing areas. Inevitably, if you follow the architects original fairway widths, wouldn't you therefore render the double-row irrigation useless?
The entire idea of double-row irrigation appears to me to be another attempt to narrow the playing area, to make this playing area green, greener, lush and plush, and consequently makes a classic design play more and more like the modern point-and-shoot courses where the required shot must be long and restricted to the dead center.

As always, the double-row irrigation product will be sold to our membership on an agronomic basis while the real reason is just another attempt to create a "championship" course which protects par according to the modern perception.

Someone teach me otherwise?

[TEPaul]

I don't understand why you think double row irrigation would be useless if you restored to the original fairway widths and why you think using double row irrigation is a perscription for narrowing fairways.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I am having trouble here too. why would this effect which you cut your rough lines.

[DWhite]

From my readings on golf architecture, I remember an author(I think the book was GOLF ARCHITECTUE: by HURZDAN, but I could be wrong)illustrating that the common widths of fairways on modern courses were typically narrow(approximately 40 yards in width). On the other hand, classic courses, which were wide-open and promoted alternative routes to the green, generally maintained fairways double the width size(hence 80 yards). If you, in fact, establish the original widths, I was simply thinking that the center of the fairway would be deprived. This location would be far reaching. Because of this potential shortcoming, double row irrigation would be a prescription to narrow fairways.

Please forget my rationale! Why would double-row irrigation be benefical and/or detrimental from both an agronomic and strategic viewpoint?

Pro - Dr. Leon Lucas, agronomist for the Carolinas Golf Association, believes that the better the irrigation system the better the transition from perenial rye to common bermuda. Assumming that double irrigation is better or more elaborate, then it would be an advantage to those courses which overseed?

Con - Pat O'Brien, with the southeast section of the USGA, believes that in order to maintain  healthy turfgrass, a club has three priorities: the tees, the greens and the fairways. He always argues to maintain the playing areas! Not the rough! Rough should be rough! Look at Pine Valley. Also stop your daily rakings in the bunkers, for they are hazards and should play as such. "If your maintainence team spends more time and effort in the  playing areas and less time outside the playing areas, then you will have a better course" is his reasoning. Double row irrigation however expands his maintenence perimeters.

[Jim Sullivan]

DWhite    It is nice to hear a proponent of the old single row approach which does so much to allow the Super to display the natural firmness of the course. We've had great results at Huntingdon Valley with our "obsolete" system (1953).

[Jeff_McDowell]

I'm not sure why you think a double row system would promote narrower fairways. I think a double row system could allow for wider fairways.

If a single row system can effectively irrigate 45 feet on either side of the line, you get a green fairway that is no wider than 90 feet.  On the other hand, a double row system can keep more like 150 feet of fairway green. This allows you to widen your fairway if you wish.

Of course, the width of the fairway is up to the club.  But I think the double row system gives you flexibility.

[DWhite]

Please disregard the width issue! I didn't mean for this to be the point. With double-row irrigation, perhaps you are right...you may be able to have wider fairways...but that is not the prevailing choice of green committees today... in my opinion, they will use it as a means to protect par, thus narrowing these new plush, green fairways to promote target golf. They will sell the membership on the color "green" issue(agronomic), and then run with the width (design) changes to meet their agenda.

But whether the width is wider or more narrow, you certainly do not have more flexibility. Where the lines of double row irrigation will be constructed, will be the set, permanent lines of demarcation between the rough and the fairway. It will constitue the general fairway routings of each hole. This is a known result of double row irrigation! Whether they are wider or more narrow or a variation of both is immaterial, although I know which way they will go with it. Is this inflexibilty good or bad?

Has anyone had double row irrigation installed at their course? Has it helped the turfgrass? Has it affected the way the course plays? Do you recommend having double row irrigation? Or from a cost/benefit analysis, does it help a little but not enough to justify its price?

[waterboy]

It's really not an issue of double or single row. Many courses have three or four rows. The issue is whether you want brown grass in noticeable arcs at the limits of the throw, or green grass from edge to edge regardless of height. Just because it's irrigated doesn't mean it's bad. A better, more flexible irrigation system makes it easier to maintain even conditions across the entire fairway instead of having rock hard, dead roughs and lush, wet centers.

[RJ_Daley]

DWhite, from a book on irrigation...

"There are many advantages to a two row sprinkler system.  First, smaller sprinklers require less discharge and can result in smaller pipe sizes.  Second, the system can often operate more sprinklers at one time.  third, application rates are lower, which result in better infiltration.  Fourth, lower operating pressure meeans smaller pump size and lower operting cost.  Fifth, the system provides a wider zone of uniform coverage near center of fairway.  Finally, less water is applied to rough areas."

This is a simplified statement. If you really want your head to hurt, pick up a book called "Golf Course and Grounds - irrigation and drainage", by Albert Jarrett.  You will find that there are so many variables to consider that even the so called irrigation and drainage experts disagree.  No two systems are alike in design because so many variables in soil, climate, turf species selection, terrain elevations, and water source availability to name a few.

[APBernstein]

I am with "waterboy" on this one.

Our club went from single-row irrigation to two and sometimes three-row irrigation and the results have been wonderful.

The rough is protected in times of drought but the conditions are still maintained as fast and firm.  I don't see why anyone would be in favor of one-row irrigation.  All that would create is very uneven conditions between rough and fairway and sometimes fairway and fairway.

[Jeff_Brauer]

DWhite,

Despite appearances, a sprinker head throws most water close to the head, and very little at the edge of the throw radii. To get even coverage in a fairway, double row is a must. In fact, it allows less water to be used, better maintaing fast, firm conditions. With single row, putting enough water at the edge of the fairway for survival and/or color means the middle must be overwatered.

With double row, the entire fairway gets more uniform coverage, and the rough gets approximately half the water it needs - perfect for survival without consistent turf or perfect color.

Modern courses seeking perfection and or consistency in the rough, or just those who want the option to water the roughs during grow in or drought go to 3 or even 4 rows. 4 is better, providing the inner 2 rows are controlled as fairway and the outer 2 are controlled as rough so they can be turned off most of the time. This is harder to do with 3 row.

Jeff

[CGCS]

DWhite.

I am currently in the middle of gathering info for my club as I feel a new irrigation is in it's future.  We have a single row system.  Installed at a time when double row was becoming the norm.  But the membership thought that a double row system would use twice the water.  So to conserve, they used a single row system.

This type of thought process in irrigation is severly flawed.

The main goal in establishing an irrigation design is coverage.  Efficient coverage.  In the current single row system the coverage coefficient is 3 to 1.  this means that if I need one inch of water on the edges ( to keep them alive so I'm not seeding into dead turf and really making for a wet playing surface).  Anyway, 3 to 1.  If I need one inch on the edges, I have to put 3 INCHES of water on the middle.  That's because the single row system is so inefficient.  How does that make for fast turf, it doesn't.

Now the newer systems, double or triple row.  They have efficiences of nearly one to one.  That means you (the golfer) can have a firm consisitant surface.  One inch of water a week over the whole fairway, not 3 down the middle and one on the edges.

Getting back to watering the roughs.  The double and triple row systems are set up to water everything inside the rows, evenly.  All of the water falling outside the row is considered incidental water and is really only put down at half rate.  This amounts to not enough water to make a difference in playablilty, unless you overwater the insides.  To water the roughs, some clubs want to.  Designers are now installing half circle heads on the outside row that throw out.  Set up to make up the difference between the middle area of watering and the outside.

I strongly recommend you or your club hire a qualified irrigation consultant/arch.  They can explain all of this to the powers so that they make an informed decision.  So many times it only appears as though the Supt is trying to make his life easier.

Good luck

CGCS  

[joe zaepfel]

we added double row irrigation at lancaster several years ago.  there are obvious changes and among the most notable is that the course plays a lot longer with the rough not being used as a bowling alley to hit 350 yard drives.  secondly, it freed up the grounds crew from coming out at midnite to activate our old system.  i guess if i was currently hitting persimmon i'd want the old system back.

[TEPaul]

I don't know much about these kinds of things and I read all the posts above with interest.

Seems to me that ideally the widths of the fairways should be dependent on the basic design and strategic ramifications of the golfer holes. Like some holes might be designed for a very wide fairway and other holes might be designed for relatively narrow fairways.

Doesn't make much sense to me to let an irrigation system dictate golf strategy. Set the fairway widths for strategic considerations and then design an irrigation system to consistently water those fairways, even if some are very wide and some aren't.

[Coz]

We installed a modern system in winter of '99-'00.  The course had been either burnt to a crisp or soggy.  These conditions could exist simultaneously on a single fairway.  Roughs had been so damaged by poor irrigation that the line of play on many holes became the rough area.  The ball rolled great on packed dirt.

The new system is multi row, dependent on width of fairway and rough.  Heads are grouped in no more than 4 at a time and mostly single or double.   The superintendent has programmed 300 separate micro climates into the conputer controlled  system which provide him with nearly perfect control of turf conditions over the entire golf course.  

In one short year we have seen a dramatic improvement in turf quality and playability.  Our water usage has dropped significantly. Which, we believe has reduced our runoff into local Salmon habitat.  We are now also in drought conditions making water efficiency more important than ever.

The system was installed at a cost of $1.1 million.  The cost was high because pipe sizes were incredibly inadequate and required complete replacement.

Hope all of this helps.  My advice is to build as much system as you can afford.  It should be helpful as environmental and water issues become more difficult going forward.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()