The failure of the Maintainance Meld

[Patrick_Mucci]

I recently played a golf course by AWT.

It's a neat course with some unique features.

Trees have/are being removed and the golf course is moving in the right direction.

However, one of the things I noticed were some odd fairway mowing patterns.

On one hole, a slight dogleg left, a diagonal bunker sits inside the dogleg challenging the golfer.  The bunker lip is raised such that the fairway beyond the bunker can't be viewed from the tee.

I hit a perfect tee shot exactly where I aimed it.
I was certain that I had a much shorter shot into the green.
I did.
However, I was in deep rough.

The rough had been bowed out, behind the bunker, such that there was NO reward for taking the risk of a longer carry over the bunker, and, it was impossible to see the rough line from the tee.

Had I elected a lesser carry, I would have found additional trouble since the far rough had been bowed IN, and, I would have been further from the green, which was surrounded by water, and in deep rough.

On a number of occassions I noticed unnecessarily penal mowing patterns.  Mowing patterns that thwarted turbo boosts and mowing patterns that encapsulated bunkers in deep rough, preventing running balls from entering them.

With a simple realignment of the fairway mowing patterns this golf course would take a giant leap upward in playability.

I sensed that the membership, Superintendent and even the consulting architect didn't understand the concept of the maintainance meld and its possitive effect on member play.

How many courses have a CLEAR conflict between the architecture and the maintainance of the golf course ?

AND, where is TEPaul when you need him ?

[JNagle]

Pat -

We see this too many times to count.  Clubs, it seems, feel that their course is can only be defended by growing rough too high and by pinching the landing areas.  It is a constant battle trying to get the wide fairways that not only lead to rewards, as you thought you were getting, but also will lead a ball into the bunker at is entrance.  Ron and I visited Chicago Golf Club years ago and Chris Jennings was doing a great job there with fairway widths.  The fairways ran right into the bunker and he also had the cut on the carry side almost to the tops of the berms.  IT WAS GREAT!!!!

As for the architect,, he many not have known the Club made the arbitrary fairways contours.  We have returned to Clubs and have seen hideous fairway lines contrary to what was recommended.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

I see this as the problem that is always associated with a club allowing a critic to drive in, play one round, and leave.  Sorry a blind feature got your smarter then the membership goat.  Perhaps you were pitched the architectural change up that some hit and runners like to call anti-strategy.  Do you really believe that it is good for the game to have every feature maintained by the book?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I see this as the problem that is always associated with a club allowing a critic to drive in, play one round, and leave.


You must delight in being wrong and making assumptions that are far removed from the facts, much like your allegation about the fans at Augusta.

I've played the golf course more than 50 times.
[/color]

Sorry a blind feature got your smarter then the membership goat.  

A view of Google earth reveals that the roughs were not cut on their existing lines just a short while ago.

I suspect that an attempt was made to make the golf course more difficult for a competition and that the club decided to retain the more difficult set-up as a "Red Badge of Courage"

On another hole, a hybrid Redan over water, they narrowed the turbo approach to less than 15 yards and configured the rough such that balls hit as the architect intended end up in deep rough, left with a dicey downhill recovery.

But, I'm glad that you, an individual who has never seen the golf course, can offer such insightful and well founded opinions.[/color]

Perhaps you were pitched the architectural change up that some hit and runners like to call anti-strategy.  

No, that's not it at all.
As I indicated, I'm intimately familiar with the golf course, having played it for more than 40 years.
 
I suspect that it was a misguided attempt to toughen up the golf course for a tournament without thinking about strategy and playability.

When an architect sends signals to the eye and the membership and/or superintendent ignores the architectural intent and the signal and imposes their desire to make the golf course more difficult by undermining the architecture, it has to have a negative impact.[/color]

Do you really believe that it is good for the game to have every feature maintained by the book ?

I guess that common sense isn't so common.
You may favor the membership's attempt to undermine and/or destroy the architects work, I don't.

Perhaps you need to go back and reread the thread, especially the part about the risk/reward associated with the longer carry AND what would have happened had I taken the shorter route.  In either case I couldn't hit the fairway.  
At 393+ yards, to an island green that's blind from further back in the fairway, only an idiot would deliberately lay back off the tee.[/color]

[Marc Haring]

You can see what's over the other side but this rough was way more punishing than that left side fairway bunker. Took the carry option right out. Nice course but when we played it we were looking for balls 15 times in the round, lost 5 of them and we were all low handicappers. That's where the five hour rounds come from. Not as much fun as it should have been.

[Jon Wiggett]

Marc,

shame about the tree planting on left as well.

[Ron Kern]

On one hole, a slight dogleg left, a diagonal bunker sits inside the dogleg challenging the golfer.  The bunker lip is raised such that the fairway beyond the bunker can't be viewed from the tee.

I hit a perfect tee shot exactly where I aimed it.
I was certain that I had a much shorter shot into the green.
I did.
However, I was in deep rough.

Sounds like the USGA is setting up the course...

[corey miller]

Baltusrol #14? Not sure how much of a dogleg left it is but the left bunker carry with turbo boost has been taken out of play.

[John Kavanaugh]

Pat,

I see this as the problem that is always associated with a club allowing a critic to drive in, play one round, and leave.


You must delight in being wrong and making assumptions that are far removed from the facts, much like your allegation about the fans at Augusta.

I've played the golf course more than 50 times.
[/color]
My contention is that ANGC does not have above ground fans running during membership play.  It is an excuse now being used by one of my supers so he can run fans even this week with temps in the 60's.  And you wonder how great courses get screwed up.[/color]

Sorry a blind feature got your smarter then the membership goat.  

A view of Google earth reveals that the roughs were not cut on their existing lines just a short while ago.

I suspect that an attempt was made to make the golf course more difficult for a competition and that the club decided to retain the more difficult set-up as a "Red Badge of Courage"

On another hole, a hybrid Redan over water, they narrowed the turbo approach to less than 15 yards and configured the rough such that balls hit as the architect intended end up in deep rough, left with a dicey downhill recovery.

But, I'm glad that you, an individual who has never seen the golf course, can offer such insightful and well founded opinions.[/color]

Thank you and thank God that we do actually play architecture for its diversity and not just to see if it follows your book.[/color]

Perhaps you were pitched the architectural change up that some hit and runners like to call anti-strategy.  

No, that's not it at all.
As I indicated, I'm intimately familiar with the golf course, having played it for more than 40 years.
 
I suspect that it was a misguided attempt to toughen up the golf course for a tournament without thinking about strategy and playability.

When an architect sends signals to the eye and the membership and/or superintendent ignores the architectural intent and the signal and imposes their desire to make the golf course more difficult by undermining the architecture, it has to have a negative impact.[/color]

So every time a golfer is challenged it is a bad thing...Have fun on the bunny slopes.[/color]

Do you really believe that it is good for the game to have every feature maintained by the book ?

I guess that common sense isn't so common.
You may favor the membership's attempt to undermine and/or destroy the architects work, I don't.

Perhaps you need to go back and reread the thread, especially the part about the risk/reward associated with the longer carry AND what would have happened had I taken the shorter route.  In either case I couldn't hit the fairway.  
At 393+ yards, to an island green that's blind from further back in the fairway, only an idiot would deliberately lay back off the tee.[/color]

Perhaps the green is better defended in its original intent by forcing the golfer to lay back or hitting a shot out of the rough.  You seem to want your cake and eat it to with the advantage that modern distance give a player of your ilk.[/color]

[John Kavanaugh]

You can see what's over the other side but this rough was way more punishing than that left side fairway bunker. Took the carry option right out. Nice course but when we played it we were looking for balls 15 times in the round, lost 5 of them and we were all low handicappers. That's where the five hour rounds come from. Not as much fun as it should have been.

I'm sorry but I don't see the problem with penalizing the long hitter that pulls his drive over the bunker.  I see more strategy with the rough beyond the bunker as opposed to a grip it and rip it mentality.

[John Kavanaugh]

The problem with too many people reading books is that soon everyone thinks that greenside bunker right requires fairway option left.  It really is boring to stand on a tee and see a textbook hole.

[Ted Kramer]

The problem with too many people reading books is that soon everyone thinks that greenside bunker right requires fairway option left.  It really is boring to stand on a tee and see a textbook hole.

I agree 100%.

-Ted

[BCrosby]

I envy you guys. You must play a lot more good strategic holes than I have. I would love to have played so many that they become tiresome.

Bob

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
Sounds like a recurring theme.

Marc,
You've played the course, I haven't, but it doesn't look like the carry option is gone from this hole, unless you want to draw it over the bunker on the left. It does look like there is a lot of landing room for a fade hit off the l. side or a draw hit off the r. side bunkers , leaving an approach to what appears to be a wide open green without much tilt.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Only if it's a pulled shot or you cross yourself up when trying to hit a fade.
There doesn't look to be any real bad spot to approach from, other than the rough, but it is only a photo.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I see this as the problem that is always associated with a club allowing a critic to drive in, play one round, and leave.


You must delight in being wrong and making assumptions that are far removed from the facts, much like your allegation about the fans at Augusta.

I've played the golf course more than 50 times.
[/color]

My contention is that ANGC does not have above ground fans running during membership play.  It is an excuse now being used by one of my supers so he can run fans even this week with temps in the 60's.  And you wonder how great courses get screwed up.[/color]

That's your amended position.
Originally you implied that ANGC ran fans on the golf course when the members were playing.  Your quote follows

Is it true that these courses use green fans to cool their greens during member play.  I'm talking about above ground and not Sub-Air.  Are they portable or permanent?[/b][/color]

Sorry a blind feature got your smarter then the membership goat.  

A view of Google earth reveals that the roughs were not cut on their existing lines just a short while ago.

I suspect that an attempt was made to make the golf course more difficult for a competition and that the club decided to retain the more difficult set-up as a "Red Badge of Courage"

On another hole, a hybrid Redan over water, they narrowed the turbo approach to less than 15 yards and configured the rough such that balls hit as the architect intended end up in deep rough, left with a dicey downhill recovery.

But, I'm glad that you, an individual who has never seen the golf course, can offer such insightful and well founded opinions.[/color]

Thank you and thank God that we do actually play architecture for its diversity and not just to see if it follows your book.[/color]

It's not following my book it's following the architect's book, not the edited version courtesy of revolving green chairman.

What you continue to FAIL to understand is that the architect designed and intended the hole to play a certain way, not as subsequent green chairman felt if should play.

A view of Google Earth reflects the golf course with the Architect's version.  There's a reason for the diagonal bunker and the right side bunker, both are now enveloped in rough with rough hidden behind the diagonal bunker for 20-30 yards.
[/color]
Perhaps you were pitched the architectural change up that some hit and runners like to call anti-strategy.  

No, that's not it at all.
As I indicated, I'm intimately familiar with the golf course, having played it for more than 40 years.
 
I suspect that it was a misguided attempt to toughen up the golf course for a tournament without thinking about strategy and playability.

When an architect sends signals to the eye and the membership and/or superintendent ignores the architectural intent and the signal and imposes their desire to make the golf course more difficult by undermining the architecture, it has to have a negative impact.[/color]

So every time a golfer is challenged it is a bad thing...Have fun on the bunny slopes.[/color]

When the challenge is presented by the architect, I have no problem with it.  When the integrity of the architect's design principles are destroyed by unknowing green chairman, I have a problem.

What is amazing is how you, who have never seen this hole, can make any comment about the interrelationship of the features and the maintainance practices employed on this hole.[/color]

Do you really believe that it is good for the game to have every feature maintained by the book ?

I guess that common sense isn't so common.
You may favor the membership's attempt to undermine and/or destroy the architects work, I don't.

Perhaps you need to go back and reread the thread, especially the part about the risk/reward associated with the longer carry AND what would have happened had I taken the shorter route.  In either case I couldn't hit the fairway.  
At 393+ yards, to an island green that's blind from further back in the fairway, only an idiot would deliberately lay back off the tee.[/color]

Perhaps the green is better defended in its original intent by forcing the golfer to lay back or hitting a shot out of the rough.[/color]

That's probably one of the stupidest comments anyone has ever made about this hole.

Laying back on the hole makes the entire green site Blind.
The entire green site is an island, surrounded by water.

The current configuration of the rough was only implemented last year.  Since the architect has been dead for 65 years, it's unlikely that the newly created rough areas were his idea.
Especially when old photos and fairly recent photos show the same area as fairway.

But, then again, you've never seen it.

You're magnifying your ignorance with every comment.[/color]

You seem to want your cake and eat it to with the advantage that modern distance give a player of your ilk.[/color]

It's clear that the ARCHITECT designed the diagonal bunker to offer the option of risk/reward to the golfer on the tee.

That's the way the hole has been presented for the 40+ years that I've been playing it.

A green chairman or some other club member/employee took it upon themselves to destroy the integrity of the design by allowing rough to grow behind the bunker, thus thwarting any option, any risk/reward.  And, because they allowed the rough to grow in on the far side shorter section of the fairway, even drives hit well right of the bunker come into conflict with deep rough and a long blind approach to a green surrounded by water.

Stick to paving roads, architecture is not your forte. [/color]

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

I was simply trying to be diplomatic in my question concerning the fans at ANGC because our super has said in writing to the membership that the fans exist.  I played today in 57 deg weather with a minimum of 20 mph gusts and the fans were on today.  Funny thing how nice a life I must have, because the ignorance of this individual and the way he is destroying a course I love is the single worst thing going on in my life.  I honestly never thought someone could single handedly destroy a course in such a short time.

[John Gosselin]

Patrick,

I was simply trying to be diplomatic in my question concerning the fans at ANGC because our super has said in writing to the membership that the fans exist.  I played today in 57 deg weather with a minimum of 20 mph gusts and the fans were on today.  Funny thing how nice a life I must have, because the ignorance of this individual and the way he is destroying a course I love is the single worst thing going on in my life.  I honestly never thought someone could single handedly destroy a course in such a short time.

John, isn't the person or persons who hired this person ultimately responsible for what is happening? Who is giving this person direction or at least giving him a vision of what kind of end product you are looking for? Is your pay scale to low to hire a person with the right qualifications?

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick,

I was simply trying to be diplomatic in my question concerning the fans at ANGC because our super has said in writing to the membership that the fans exist.  I played today in 57 deg weather with a minimum of 20 mph gusts and the fans were on today.  Funny thing how nice a life I must have, because the ignorance of this individual and the way he is destroying a course I love is the single worst thing going on in my life.  I honestly never thought someone could single handedly destroy a course in such a short time.

John, isn't the person or persons who hired this person ultimately responsible for what is happening? Who is giving this person direction or at least giving him a vision of what kind of end product you are looking for? Is your pay scale to low to hire a person with the right qualifications?

John,

This is one of the top jobs in the country and this super came at the recommendation of the USGA.  I can't blame the owners when the super writes things like the following on his report to the members.  After reading this again I have to wonder if it is not true because why would a guy make it up?

Fans:  We will soon be placing a fan near #1 green.  I don't believe anyone, myself included, likes the visual look of fans near greens.  However, in our difficult growing environment they are a necessary evil.  Comforting is the fact that many of the best clubs in the country have them.  In recent trips to Muirfield Village Golf Club and Augusta National Golf Club, I was surprised to see that they had many more than we do.

btw.  If money was the issue I doubt if he would be running the fans all day in 60 deg weather...The electric cost should be huge in itself if the fans run seven days a week for seven months.   In case you are not aware we also have sub-air in every green.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I lost a pretty comprehensive post on this thread ironically when I was speaking to you the other night.

This is a really good subject and a huge problem on some courses that is basically ignorance of what it takes maintenance-wise to make courses play the way they were designed to be played.

It's just another example of how too many clubs try to shut down valuable and interesting architectural shot options via maintenance practices probably thinking they just need to make a course play harder by making it play one dimensional option-wise.

What they fail to realize is it's very possible to make a course play hard or challenging by bringing various options into various degrees of function and effectiveness for the sole purpose and goal of getting those various options "balanced" or in a "state of equilibrium" whereby the player struggles with what type of shot option to choose before he even hits a shot.

But this kind of thing is not the failure of the Ideal Maintenance Meld, it's merely the opposite of one of the primary factors of the Ideal Maintenance Meld.  

[John Gosselin]

If it is one of the top jobs in the country I would assume your super is being paid 200k plus and has 20 plus years experience as a superintendent and assistant. Or is it a top job in facility name only.


"I honestly never thought someone could single handedly destroy a course in such a short time."

Sounds like more than just fans.

I didn't know the USGA was in the head hunting business for superintendents.


Patrick, sorry to highjack your thread.

I can't tell you how many times I have asked to plant a tree, add a bunker, change a fairway line, extend a creek, and so on for the sake of making a hole tougher or "defending par". Most, if not all, were at the expense of the quality of the hole.

The rough extensine or fairway elimination I think is one of the most common because it is one of the cheapest.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

This thread is about fairway lines and rough in places it shouldn't be, but there are a lot of potential factors in the entire panoply of the "Ideal Maintenance Meld".

Obviously one of those primary factors are bunkers themselves and not just the rough around them. Bunkers basically need to exact penalty to some extent in the currency of strokes and they can only do that in two ways---eg, first, their "architecture" such as steepness, verticality in various parts of them, and, second, in the state of their sand surfaces. This second factor is potentially huge in the entire arena of playability, strategy etc but unfortunately we also know that today, particularly in America, it's a battle that has virtually been completely lost and never will be won in the future. Unfortunately, almost everyone today,  including almost all supers seem to expect and even demand highly maintained sand and sand quality for ease of recovery shot.

[John Kavanaugh]

If it is one of the top jobs in the country I would assume your super is being paid 200k plus and has 20 plus years experience as a superintendent and assistant. Or is it a top job in facility name only.


"I honestly never thought someone could single handedly destroy a course in such a short time."

Sounds like more than just fans.

I didn't know the USGA was in the head hunting business for superintendents.


Patrick, sorry to highjack your thread.

I can't tell you how many times I have asked to plant a tree, add a bunker, change a fairway line, extend a creek, and so on for the sake of making a hole tougher or "defending par". Most, if not all, were at the expense of the quality of the hole.

The rough extensine or fairway elimination I think is one of the most common because it is one of the cheapest.

I don't think that mechanical fans that disturb the golfer visually, physically and phonically are any less a maintenance meld issue than some rough beyond a bunker.

btw...How many supers in the country make $200,000 plus?  Is it really over 20 because that is the number of clubs ranked higher by Golf Digest when the guy took the job.  I have zero idea what his salary is and consider it none of my business.

[JESII]

200K in Southern Indiana is probably a bit different than 200K in Westchester County, NY, but the job is the job and the top job at a top course/club should command the attention of the best in the industry...I am sure your guy came very highly recommended...which must be scary to you...

[John Kavanaugh]

200K in Southern Indiana is probably a bit different than 200K in Westchester County, NY, but the job is the job and the top job at a top course/club should command the attention of the best in the industry...I am sure your guy came very highly recommended...which must be scary to you...

I tried to handle this behind the scenes and can even accept the visual impact of the fans given that we at times experience temps and humidity both above 90 when the fans wouldn't hurt and may even help.  What I can not accept is running the fans with temps in the 60's for no logical reason.  

Another strange thing that is tied to maintenance meld is the decision to have our club championship on May 26th and 27th which also happens to be Memorial Day weekend.

[Tags:]

Tags: