next »

[Anthony Gray]

  Tommy Williamsen noted on a recent thread that most Nicklaus courses are overly manicured.

  Augusta National is so pristine it looks unreal.

  Is all this good/bad for golf?

  Do the architects feel there is an unrealistic expectation from developers for the pristine?

  Do the supers feel pressure to have their course in Augusta shape?

  What is the future trend?

  Anthony

[Dan Herrmann]

I think it's bad, especially from an environmental standpoint.

Augusta is significant enough that it should stay as it is, but wannabes - no way.

[Tom_Doak]

I guess a lot depends on your definition of "over" manicuring, but by what standard would overmanicuring be a good thing?

A lot of the blame for it falls upon architects, too.  I have heard several architects over the years say something to the effect of, "If my name is going to be on the course, I want the conditioning to be perfect."  Regardless of expense or profitability!  It's just one more bad side effect of the "signature" designer craze.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom, this type of thing makes me appreciate guys like you and Gil even more.  I love Gil's associate Jim Wagner's quote about wanting to make French Creek a "rugged countryside course".  Pretty much the antithesis of Augusta wannabe-ism.

There's only one Augusta, so why try to imitate it?

[Sean Arble]

I reckon pristine is good if you can afford it and want it.  Pristine isn't however my bag as I prefer the aesthetics of a more natural look.  I recently played Yeamans and its presentation was very, very good.  It is a shame the bunkering sort of spoils the look with its unnatural regimentation, but a lot of folks dig that sort of thing.  Here are some pix which demonstrate what I mean.

[img[http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff114/seanrobertarble/13April2009097.jpg?t=1239653551[/img]http://





Ciao

[Pat Craig]

Wouldn't it cost more to keep a course looking "rugged" vs. just a normal run of the mill bunker? The "rugged" look as so many different layers and many times I would think it would take more attention to keep something brown AND alive.

[Dan Herrmann]

Pat,
I'm nowhere close to being an expert, but as far as I know, grass can brown out and still be alive.  IIRC, Hoylake was back to green only a month or so after it hosted The Open a few years back.

And grass goes dormant here in Pennsyvania every winter.  Gets really green about this time of year too.

A little bit of sepia is good for golf

[Tom_Doak]

Sean A:  I could not agree with you more about Yeamans Hall and their maintenance priorities.  Of course, it helps them a bit that they are in a climate zone where the grass goes dormant part of the year and makes life easier ... but all you've got to do is look at their roughs for a great example. 

Where most new courses have some sort of bermuda roughs which is fertilized and watered, a lot of the roughs at Yeamans Hall are something that Jim Yonce calls "smutgrass."  (I don't know if that's the real name or he just made it up.)  Whichever, the grass is moderately functional and requires VERY little maintenance ... and there is no pressure from the membership to spray the roughs to keep a pure stand of smutgrass.  Of course, an architect would be pilloried if he suggested planting the stuff; I don't even know if you can buy it, because the turfgrass industry is all about GREEN grass.

Years ago at High Pointe, my friend Tom Mead suggested that if we wanted good contrast between the fairways and roughs, we should order the poor performers in the seed company turf trials, because they would be the ones to go brown the quickest.

[Jason Topp]

I'm of two minds on this issue.  I really like it that our Green Committee obsesses over flowers and fountains and the like because that leaves less opportunity to screw up the golf course.  I'll happily give up a flower bed in exchange for avoiding efforts to improve a course that is already very good.

Nonetheless, I agree with the rough look.  In particular, I really liked the rough on the sandbelt courses which was bermuda but very raggedy in appearance.   

10 at Royal Melbourne West:



This bunker picture from Kingston Heath shows the look from a closer view:

[Sean Arble]

Sean A:  I could not agree with you more about Yeamans Hall and their maintenance priorities.  Of course, it helps them a bit that they are in a climate zone where the grass goes dormant part of the year and makes life easier ... but all you've got to do is look at their roughs for a great example. 

Where most new courses have some sort of bermuda roughs which is fertilized and watered, a lot of the roughs at Yeamans Hall are something that Jim Yonce calls "smutgrass."  (I don't know if that's the real name or he just made it up.)  Whichever, the grass is moderately functional and requires VERY little maintenance ... and there is no pressure from the membership to spray the roughs to keep a pure stand of smutgrass.  Of course, an architect would be pilloried if he suggested planting the stuff; I don't even know if you can buy it, because the turfgrass industry is all about GREEN grass.

Years ago at High Pointe, my friend Tom Mead suggested that if we wanted good contrast between the fairways and roughs, we should order the poor performers in the seed company turf trials, because they would be the ones to go brown the quickest.

Tom

I was amazed to hear on Pat M's thread about rough that supers feed the rough!  This sounds absolutely ridiculous to me.  Spend money on something so undesirable as harsh rough then spend more to cut it.  I guess its just another way to try and outsmart nature rather than going with it.  Its a PoV I don't understand and I think it is misguided.  If the club is relying heavily on rough to create natural hazards there is something very, very wrong.

Ciao 

[Scott Warren]

"Overly" anything would by definition be bad, wouldn't it?

I like both extremes in their right place.