[Sean_A]

Are these elements so intertwined with architecture that talking about one and not the other is hopeless?

Lord knows that getting involved in a knock down drag out fight is a lose/lose situation.  So, I decided to take my questions concerning the PB/PD thread here.

1. If the weather allows for golf all year round, do folks think a course draining better for the entire 12 months has an advantage?  If so, does this advantage have any direct bearing on how one interacts with the architecture?

2. Do folks think the types of soils and grasses can further add to drainage capability and if so, does this materially effect how one interacts with the architecture?

3. To take it a step further, do the types of soils and grasses allow for a more varied architectural course than one which doesn't drain and as well (again comparing courses which are playable all year round) and hence isn't as keen?  For instance, we all know when courses are wet the effect of angles is vastly diminshed.  Is this a mark against the architecture even if the archie cannot control the circumstances?

4. If angles are a strong consideration in quality of design, is the importance of the site selection as important as the design?

Ciao    

[Adrian_Stiff]

Sean - Yes they do make a difference. Some grasses only grow in certain temperature ranges we cant grow Bermuda in the UK except at the very tips in Cornwall, we cant really grow creeping bentgrass in the UK if we opt to play winter golf on it, in fact in the UK almost all winter play is at the detriment of summer play and winter play in the UK causes wear and therefore space and the first grass to get back into that space is Poa Annua. In the UK we dont really need irrigation on our fairways and we can grow great fescues and common bentgrass turf on thin soils. This is great news for firm and fast conditions which of course are great for angles and the ground game, soft and spongy conditions detract sand encourage aerial golf. These great things for the UK can't be achieved in other areas of the world where hotter conditions dictate that irrigation systems are essential for growing the grass and its very survival...think Dubai. It is hard for the superintendent to take the course to F&F as it may be just a day or so away from disaster, these courses have dampness in the fairways and approaches so are anti the ground game. Much of the USA is like this too, though USA superintendents will be best to comment on their areas as you know it can bee 40c in some parts and 0c in others on the same day. Most new courses are not on dream golf sites, often they are on heavy soils and we have to play the cards we are dealt, in big budgets you could put the best soils there, great soils are not deep perhaps a 100mm of rootzone (what gets used in the greens) over the fairways is probably enough to create desired F&F conditions, ask me this question in a few weeks time and I can show you the difference in these soils and you can see for yourself.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks for that post Adrian...that was great.

[Steve Kline]

I would not fault the architect for something beyond his control but I will most definitely enjoy more e course that can be maintained at its ideal maintenance meld more often.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Will answer more later, but a course needs to drain well in all seasons.  Even up north, it has to be ready to take snow melt and run off even if not in play.

[Mac Plumart]

For me it is the single most important element of a golf course - it surprises me that it's not cited that often as a big negative when the top tier Bermuda grass courses are discussed

I think that is one of the big knocks on Southern US courses and I believe it is a big reason why they aren't discussed more.  Although I am not educated enough on the topic to speak with authority, I'd say the soil (and available grass types) limits the architects as well.

To build on the point you made, my return from Scotland to golf in Georgia showed the difference grass and turf makes on the options available to golfers.  And with this the margin of error on shots shifts from a ground game to an aerial one.  In Scotland, bump and run was, for me, almost always the play, unless a hazard was in the way (almost always a bunker, not water), as the risk of a skull (scull) was the greatest risk if going for the air attack.  While in Georgia, this risk of the skulled (sculled) wedge is usually acceptable as the precision with which irons can be bumped and run is immense.  Not that a hazard has to be in the way, it is just that the bermuda, zyosia, grasses grab the ball and seem sticky.  This is a real issue when the greens are super firm and the fairways lush.

You bring up a great point!

[Mike_Young]

Sean,
Yes..it determines the architecture....
JMO
Cheers,
MWY

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

The answer to your climate is "absolutely."

I've done quite well at picking places to work where the kinds of features we like to build actually work well.  I had to take my lumps for years about the playability of fescue fairways in America before anybody saw the light, but they were a huge part of the equation in making a course with wide fairways affordable to maintain, on top of which, they allow for shots around the greens which puffy bentgrass or poa annua do not.

I've explained before how much easier it is to build in sand -- where what you shape is what you get, and you don't have to worry about adding layers of topsoil or drainage and making everything match up.  But, you can also build features in sand that you just can't build anywhere else.  You can have little pockets in the fairways or just off the greens, and trust them to drain without an inlet.  You can have a portion of the approach that feeds balls onto the green, without worrying that the surface drainage onto the green will contaminate the greens mix. 

I've worked on some of the best soils on earth -- the chop hills of Colorado, the sands of northern Michigan, the Oregon dunes, the cups area of the Mornington Peninsula, and the links of East Lothian.  I could do a lot of stuff in those locations that Mike Y. just can't do in Georgia.  He should really think about finding a job somewhere else. 

[Mike_Young]

Sean:
  I could do a lot of stuff in those locations that Mike Y. just can't do in Georgia.  He should really think about finding a job somewhere else. 

TD,
I'm gonna find me one of those sand jobs....
Hope all is well...

[Sean_A]

So it would seem folks are willing to say playing on finer grasses that grow in the better draining soils is a definite positive.  However, I am not seeing folks make the next logical step of these conditions providing for better architecture.  Why is that?

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

Not entirely true.  There has been a move to sand capping fw approaches and chipping areas, and adding more tiles to provide drier, consistent areas for ground game.  More and more, entire fairways are being sand capped, too, after a century of belief that it was always best to just use the native soils.

And that is an interesting philosophical question - should golf be played differently in different parts of the world, or should we spend bazillions to create scottish, bump and run conditions everywhere?  Personally, I don't see a lot wrong with different types of golf in different areas of the world.  Or, for the top tier courses in anyone region to provide different conditions so there is variety in any given region.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I'm curious...how did you find the soil at RCCC?  As one who has lived in the PNW for years now, in my various road trips in the region, I've found sand blowouts in the terrain along the highway in surprising places.  Did you find much sandy soil at the ranch?

[Mike_Young]

Sean,
And that is an interesting philosophical question - should golf be played differently in different parts of the world, or should we spend bazillions to create scottish, bump and run conditions everywhere?  Personally, I don't see a lot wrong with different types of golf in different areas of the world.  Or, for the top tier courses in anyone region to provide different conditions so there is variety in any given region.

Jeff,
Right on....that is the crux of this entire golf issue presently.....sure we should play golf differently in different parts of the world and we should use the local materials....

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I'm curious...how did you find the soil at RCCC?  As one who has lived in the PNW for years now, in my various road trips in the region, I've found sand blowouts in the terrain along the highway in surprising places.  Did you find much sandy soil at the ranch?

Kalen:

The soil at Rock Creek was pretty nice, apart from all the rocks.  We made the decision there to sort out the rocks and bury them on site and use the native soil for the fairways, instead of sand capping everything ... I just have a hard time justifying the need to sand cap sixty acres of a site.  Of course, by the time we sorted through all the rocks, it might have cost just as much as plating everything with a foot of sand, but at least I feel better about it.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean,
And that is an interesting philosophical question - should golf be played differently in different parts of the world, or should we spend bazillions to create scottish, bump and run conditions everywhere?  Personally, I don't see a lot wrong with different types of golf in different areas of the world.  Or, for the top tier courses in anyone region to provide different conditions so there is variety in any given region.

Jeff,
Right on....that is the crux of this entire golf issue presently.....sure we should play golf differently in different parts of the world and we should use the local materials....

Mike / Jeff:

Have you guys seen many places where they are making sound financial decisions about how to build golf courses?

I haven't.  In China, sand capping every square inch of every golf course is the norm.  In France and Spain, I've been pretty shocked to have clients ask me if we should sand cap ... both projects have "reasonable" budgets and there is no way they can justify the cost of sand capping ... the soil in Madrid really isn't bad to begin with, but I guess all the broke golf courses on the Costa del Sol sand capped everything.  Jack Nicklaus and Tom Fazio's construction standards seem to be the norm for everywhere else in the world, and I fear that is just because it's easier to borrow those and not worry [as the architect] than to try to figure out a more reasonable solution based on local conditions.

I just have a philosophical problem with sand capping.  I think it's got something to do with the fact that, of the two courses where my clients insisted on it, one was foreclosed on and had to write off a $65 million loss, and the other went broke before we even finished the course.   

[Don_Mahaffey]

It will be interesting to see how golf development plays out in the future. One thing we know for sure is there will be a lot less new golf, but another aspect to watch will be to see if some level of practicality enters into golf development.
I have to believe it was a whole lot easier to spend $20 million building a course when you called yourself the owner but what you really were was someone smart enough to arrange the financing...and probably make a little percentage off each dollar spent for supervising the project.
Unless our economy does something drastic, I don't think we're going to find a lot of lenders willing to fund expensive golf courses. When owners/developers start writing checks drawn on their own accounts we just might see some common sense come back to golf.
That is what I'm banking on and quite honestly I never thought it would take as long as it has to get where we are.
I believe the reality is even with less investment, and most architects and contractors know this, with the right people involved we can still build outstanding golf courses that are highly functional.
Designing courses that fit well within the climate and environmental conditions that can be practically constructed and maintained with local materials and labor has always made a lot of sense. It may well be the only way for most projects as we move forward.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

Not entirely true.  There has been a move to sand capping fw approaches and chipping areas, and adding more tiles to provide drier, consistent areas for ground game.  More and more, entire fairways are being sand capped, too, after a century of belief that it was always best to just use the native soils.

And that is an interesting philosophical question - should golf be played differently in different parts of the world, or should we spend bazillions to create scottish, bump and run conditions everywhere?  Personally, I don't see a lot wrong with different types of golf in different areas of the world.  Or, for the top tier courses in anyone region to provide different conditions so there is variety in any given region.

Jeff

Of course golf can be different depending on the climate and preferences, but that wasn't my question.  I was speaking more toward courses which are played year round.  One stays dry and has architecture to reflect this.  The other doesn't stay dry and its architecture may or may  not reflect this.  Does the dry course have an architectural advantage because of the well draining turf? 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I would say yes, good drainage is an architectural advantage, and a business one.  One of my current clients has his players tell him they don't play in shoulder seasons because they aren't sure the course will be dry.  He doesn't book many outings, because no one can be sure what the course will be like for their big event.  Then, come summer, it gets too dry from their inadequate irrigation system, and golfers complain they can't hold shots on their hilly, cross slope fairways.  So, there is a lot of advantage to consistency.  The gca may not be designing for firm and fast, but then, with proper irrigation and drainage, we can design for some reasonable consistency of moderately dry conditions and predict how the ball might react within a range.


Tom, Don, Mike,

What really kills me is whether or not adding all the expense really solves problems, or just creates new ones?

I have sand capped solid rock sites.  I am doing it at La Costa now, because their soil is so salt contaminated and water quality is so crappy.  They had a few capped already, and we could see the turf was much better, so I was convinced it helped.

But, bunker liners? On rocks same thing. Elsewhere it keeps sand whiter longer, but its more expensive and it still needs to be replace.  Tee mix and tiles?  Part to part heads?  Special irrigation on bunker noses?

I am just not sure how to justify all those costs.  Is $30K extra for bunker face irrigation (or debt totaling maybe $3K per year saving that much in labor?  If so, is it worth it to go in further debt for perfect bunker edge turf?  Will golfers pay $0.10-$0.15 a round for that?

To answer Tom's question, I guess I am not in rarefied air quite so much as he.  But, I do see the trend for more technological solutions in all areas of golf construction, just slower than the top end boys.

I wonder just how much bankers will get involved in those decisions moving forward as in my $x.xx per round example above?  I think lots of those things are driven by non practical supers (not Don!) who recommend over doing just to be sure they can keep up, and of course, the salesmen of such products.  Maybe the gca's trying to keep up with the Jones.  

The pressure seems to over construct come from everywhere, and I am just speculating that the restraint will come from outside the traditional decision makers in golf.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

That was my point; I don't see very many American architects showing any restraint in telling the rest of the world how to build their courses.  The prevailing model is still the one that bankrupted golf in America, but made some golf course architects and contractors and suppliers fairly wealthy in the process.

Sometimes I'm struck by how many of these expenses can be traced back to golf carts.  The more I'm around them, the more I see that superintendents need more drainage and irrigation, and use it more often, because of the need to get carts around.  They justify it on the belief that people just won't play otherwise -- they'll go somewhere else where they're letting the carts out on the fairways.  I'm not saying it's not true; I'm just saying we have put the cart before the course.

[Ben Sims]

Sean,

I don't think there's any question that it makes a helluva difference.  In fact, I hope that my future in golf can be tied to understanding and evolving golf construction and maintenance to embrace those differences.  

Tom says lightheartedly towards my Georgia brother Mike Young that he can do stuff on sand that you simply can't do in the clay south.  I agree, at least currently.  But there are techniques and procedures being worked on that I believe will have a huge impact on how bermuda plays.  Don does some amazing stuff with linksy 'muda down in South Texas.  Embracing construction methods that work with native soils, promote firm playability and good drainage; that's the heart of what I think will be an emerging market.  

The minimalist movement started with an idea towards golden age playability and strategy.  It is evolving into a minimalist construction aspect as well.  Knowing what you can and can't do in a given environment is paramount if you're going to be affordable.  That's where knowledge and balls help.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

After one of Melvyn's recent anti-American rants, I was having a conversation with an American friend who lives part time in Germany.  When someone commented on the lack of American culture, he shot back that its the strongest convenience culture in the history of the world.  Not sure anyone needs to justify carts here in America.

But yeah, carts and compaction.  Hopefully, someone will see Back to the Future and invent the hovercraft golf cart.  I mean, it JUST HAS TO happen!  Besides cart path savings, maybe cart barns can be smaller because they could be stacked vertically.  In the interim, I have wondered why no individual golf carts, flotation tires, etc. to reduce their effect.  Someone always has a reason.  

It is interesting that the Chinese model for golf courses may be the first to bypass all golf history and start with the American model, divorced from most traditional GBI golf models.  As they say in art, you should paint from the landscape, not from a painting of the landscape.  That second level between artist and subject reduces finished quality.

[JMEvensky]

In the interim, I have wondered why no individual golf carts, flotation tires, etc. to reduce their effect.  Someone always has a reason.  

 

I believe there's an Australian (?)  manufacturer of these,or something very similar.I saw something about them a year or two ago because I thought they would work well as "flagged" carts.They e-mailed me that they had no US distributor nor did they plan on getting one.

[Tom_Doak]

JM:  The first time I was in Australia, in 1988, I was out taking pictures at Royal Adelaide and there was a guy playing golf using one of those three-wheeled ATV's with a rack on the back as his golf cart!

I thought it was probably the future of golf, but I've never seen one in that role again.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I would say yes, good drainage is an architectural advantage, and a business one.  One of my current clients has his players tell him they don't play in shoulder seasons because they aren't sure the course will be dry.  He doesn't book many outings, because no one can be sure what the course will be like for their big event.  Then, come summer, it gets too dry from their inadequate irrigation system, and golfers complain they can't hold shots on their hilly, cross slope fairways.  So, there is a lot of advantage to consistency.  The gca may not be designing for firm and fast, but then, with proper irrigation and drainage, we can design for some reasonable consistency of moderately dry conditions and predict how the ball might react within a range.


Tom, Don, Mike,

What really kills me is whether or not adding all the expense really solves problems, or just creates new ones?

I have sand capped solid rock sites.  I am doing it at La Costa now, because their soil is so salt contaminated and water quality is so crappy.  They had a few capped already, and we could see the turf was much better, so I was convinced it helped.

But, bunker liners? On rocks same thing. Elsewhere it keeps sand whiter longer, but its more expensive and it still needs to be replace.  Tee mix and tiles?  Part to part heads?  Special irrigation on bunker noses?

I am just not sure how to justify all those costs.  Is $30K extra for bunker face irrigation (or debt totaling maybe $3K per year saving that much in labor?  If so, is it worth it to go in further debt for perfect bunker edge turf?  Will golfers pay $0.10-$0.15 a round for that?

To answer Tom's question, I guess I am not in rarefied air quite so much as he.  But, I do see the trend for more technological solutions in all areas of golf construction, just slower than the top end boys.

I wonder just how much bankers will get involved in those decisions moving forward as in my $x.xx per round example above?  I think lots of those things are driven by non practical supers (not Don!) who recommend over doing just to be sure they can keep up, and of course, the salesmen of such products.  Maybe the gca's trying to keep up with the Jones.  

The pressure seems to over construct come from everywhere, and I am just speculating that the restraint will come from outside the traditional decision makers in golf.

So Jeff

If playing on fine grasses which drain well is an architectural advantage, does it stand to reason that climate and soils are a marriage (good or bad) with architecture that can't really be separated?  

Tom

Assuming carts are are a given, I would think the easy solution to cart issues is cart paths.  Owners don't really sand cap courses so they can get carts on them - do they?

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Jeff writes:

"It is interesting that the Chinese model for golf courses may be the first to bypass all golf history and start with the American model, divorced from most traditional GBI golf models.  As they say in art, you should paint from the landscape, not from a painting of the landscape.  That second level between artist and subject reduces finished quality."

Interesting observation. I wonder if the Chinese were really the first to bypass GBI models. Can Fazio or Cupp be seen as doing idealized versions of US Golden Age courses and bypassing the real thing? That is, doing the Sino thing, but a generation earlier? (As opposed to Dye, say?) Let me chew on that.

Bob   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()