Experimentation in architecture / maintenance

[Philippe Binette]

The thread on the fairway cut between green and the next tee got me thinking about an experimentation that was done while renovating the Duke's course in 2006.

see the details here:
http://binettegolfarchitecture.blogspot.com/2012/01/just-by-mowing-course-differently.html

but my thought is that it seems people are really reluctant to experiment with the course on simple stuff like mowing. Trying a new mowing pattern in not that expensive (except if different grasses) and can be changed back if people don't like it.

Funny enough, you'll find people ready to put 200 000 $ to built a lake with a vague idea of a non-return change, but mowing the course differently just to try... no way ?

Is golf course maintenance taken too seriously ?

[Philippe Binette]

I mean, golf maintenance is a serious business.

but is there room for experimenting ?...

I mean, a club is not forced to set up its course exactly the same year after year, or is it ?

[Garland Bayley]

I mean, golf maintenance is a serious business.

but is there room for experimenting ?...

I mean, a club is not forced to set up its course exactly the same year after year, or is it ?

It would seem to me that the members have maintenance practices they like, and will ask that they be returned if they are deviated from. So to that extent a club is forced to set up the same.

[Philippe Binette]

I can understand that there is an optimal setup on great courses... but some average courses can benefit from a little experimentation instead of staying "average" year in year out.

But people prefer the same recipe for the same results... even if the results are mediocre

[Garland Bayley]

I can understand that there is an optimal setup on great courses... but some average courses can benefit from a little experimentation instead of staying "average" year in year out.

But people prefer the same recipe for the same results... even if the results are mediocre

The vast majority of club members do not know the results are mediocre.

For example, at my club they want the fairways mowed narrower than what I would consider optimal. However, I consider that a less important issue that the removal of excess trees, which I lobby for, but they resist adamantly. Again, they prefer the less optimal maintenance.

[Joey Chase]

I mean, golf maintenance is a serious business.

but is there room for experimenting ?...

I mean, a club is not forced to set up its course exactly the same year after year, or is it ?

It would seem to me that the members have maintenance practices they like, and will ask that they be returned if they are deviated from. So to that extent a club is forced to set up the same.

One of the courses I worked at had diagonally striped up fairways.  We decided to try the box cut (half one direction, half the other) and were criticized for it.  It was a classic parkland course.  The new cut looked great to me and saved time and money.  We were forced to return to the stripes. 

I guess there is always a group of members that will prefer that things don't ever change.  It is for the better of the course that it does continue to evolve, IMO.

[RJ_Daley]

I agree with your premise, Philippe.  However, such experimentation seems to me to be able to most likely occur on a course owned or run by a benevolent dictator, than a committee or management company.  Member committee consensus to break out of a mold of 'that is how we like it' mentality would seem almost insurmountable.  Or, you'd have to have one fast talking super.

[Jim_Kennedy]

PB,
Along with liking the status quo, money is also a consideration. Experimentation, like adding 7 to 10 yards of fairway, will increase the club's budget, so someone is going to ask the question of just how much bang they'll be getting for the extra bucks.

[Michael Essig]

Since I am a member of a club at a resort, we have no say on maintenance, but I have questions.  How often is the rough mowed?  How often is the grass around the greens mowed?  For me, length of rough completely changes a course and should be altered based on the playability of the rough and the hardness/softness of greens and wind conditions.  Simply, long rough makes some courses just monsters.  (Played Pinehurst #2 a few days before they closed it in preparattion for the Open a few years back. Yikes).  And the recovery from around the greens when rough is too long can make it very difficult.  Would the members notice if the rough was cut to 2.5" instead of 3" or whatever your "normal" is?  What about you incrementally take it down so they don't notice?  Because if you slowly lowered it over a year or two, if you took it back to the prior "normal" they would probably scream that it is too long.

[Philippe Binette]

I understand the money issue, but less mowing between the back tees and the womens tee in trade of more fairways would be a fair trade.