GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture

The importance of agronomy to a golf designer

(1/6) > >>

Michael Dugger:
Lately there has been a run of posts about agronomic issues.  It has me wondering about how much our golf course architects truly know about this complicated science.  

While a golf course designer turns his project over to a greenskeeper once the course is constructed, how much knowledge of agronomy does one need to have in the beginning?  

I imagine it is essential to have knowledge of grasses in creating GRASS CONTRAST.  I imagine it is essential to know what grasses will grow well in what climates.  I have a superintendent buddy who is constantly inundating me with his theories on how different grasses make such a HUGE difference in playing conditions.  Aside from the difference in putting on something like Bermuda, for example, where you have to take the direction the grass is laying/lying into consideration, I have a hard time buying into the bit about there being a HUGE distinction in playing conditions between different grasses.  Is fast and firm Bermuda different from fast and firm Bent.  Does cutting to 1/32 vs 1/16 makes that much difference in the fairways and around the greens?  Can Bermuda get fast and firm, or is this only applicable to fescues? (or others?)  If a golf course designer has a grass guru on board could they, in theory, be quite oblivious to the subject and rely on their teammates for agronomic matters?

I know it's a lot of questions but let it fly wherever you deem fit.      

Forrest Richardson:
The golf architect needs to know about 10 to 40% as much as a good, well-experienced agronomist. Of course, more may be helpful in some situations...and it is always possible that a GCA might know more about a particular region, etc.  But, today, most projects have specialized consultants who carry the burden..."most projects".

Steve Lang:
;D

I say when a GCA uses grass conceptually as framing or painting a picture and perhaps at owners direction to reduce acreage needed to maintain, then they haven't thought it all out very well, and in my opinion failed in GCA.  So I think agronomy is very important!

At the WCC Panther Trail (old Pines/North course) we now have snakes and rats and the like... as well as landowner lawsuits brewing over the ugly "concept" long grass closely bordering the place.. no amount of wildflowers is ever going to reduce the ire this has wrought..

On a technical note, since agronomy has to be closely considered in the site's water balance, as well as playability it is definitely important.

I had the pleasure of playing The Bayonet at Puppy Creek on the south flank of Ft Bragg while playing around Southern Pines/Pinehurst NC area in late May and this turf grower turned golf course developer has done an excellent job of mixing the turf set-ups in different areas of the course.  The greens were the best of 7 courses played, so there's a real world example.  

Joe Hancock:
I was an irrigation tech at a Dye club in NC. The decision was made to use centipedegrass in the roughs, to reduce maintenance. It it the exact opposite of the bermudagrass fairways in terms of nitrogen requirements. (Thats where the low maintenance angle came from....slow growing on bunker faces, low fertility, etc.) What happened was every part of the centipede that got fertilized during the first year of grow-in was killed that first winter...centipede can't handle nitrogen and cold together. After that first year, the fairways were fertilized around the perimeters with walk behind drop spreaders to avoid further damage....so much for informed agronomic decisions to reduce maintenance!

It's critical for the success of any new project to have a reasonablly well informed architect and superintendent who are willing to research their grass options together...and come to a sensible conclusion about what will bring long term success to each individual project.

Joe

Forrest Richardson:
I think an appropriate "poster child" of this thread is the Apache Stronghold course in eastern Arizona. I have been there twoce recently and can attest that the choices of turfgrass were, at best, poorly handled. It seems they made the "right" choice, but failed to plan on how to maintain it. Then, they changed and now have been dealing with awful transitions. In speaking with the greenkeeper yesterday it seems like it's back on track, but, gee, after several years you might expect more. The architect needs to be forceful in getting good decisions made — mostly he/she needs to ensure good people are at the helm and making the good decisions. I am confident Apache Stronghold will prevail, but it is a shame that a good design has been tainted by such wrongful decisions and care.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page