When F&F blends with the architectural

[Patrick_Mucci]

features, the golf course hums.

Ron Prichard has done a spectacular job in reconstructing the bunkers and bringing the fairways right up to the bunkers at Mountain Ridge.

The difference, versus the substantive buffers of rough between the fairways and bunkers, is terrific.

No longer will balls headed toward a bunker be saved by the safety net of a buffer of rough.

Balls will now "sail" into the bunkers.

To a degree, many of the bunkers are gathering in nature, primarily due to the way the fairways lead into the bunkers, absent any buffers of rough to catch a ball.

This rejuxtaposition of bunker and fairway will dramatically change playability.

The sloping terrain will be more of a factor, requiring the golfer to think and execute his shots wisely.

When combined with F&F conditions, the "maintainance meld" between the play of the course and the integration of the architectural features has been beautifully achieved.

The result, albeit with wider fairways, will give the course more in the way of defense.

The expanded fairways will help all golfers, but, the unwary golfer will suffer since the crutch or safety net has been removed.

For decades I've been advocating for bringing the fairways right up to the bunkers edge.

Ron has done a terrific job in achieving this arrangement, this meeting between fairways and bunkers.

I'm hopeful, that other golfers/superintendents/pros, in seeing the results, will import them to their respective clubs.

What other clubs, in recent times, have successfully embarked upon a similar program ?

How long before other clubs follow ?

[Mark Chaplin]

I prefer to ask when did bunkers start to become islands in the middle of the rough. Was it poor design or poor maintenance practises that led to this problem?

Patrick when you say "what other clubs have successfully embarked on a similar programme?" don't you mean who has got the mowers out, it's not really a programme just a bit of sensible mower driving!

[Ian Larson]

I'm about to propose this with ours at Atlantic City Country Club. It just makes sense.

[Tom_Doak]

What other clubs, in recent times, have successfully embarked upon a similar program ?

How long before other clubs follow ?

Patrick:

Chicago Golf Club actually mows fairway right into their bunkers on several holes, per an offhand comment by Ben Crenshaw, who's a member there.  There is no rough at all.  It's hard to get the grades right to do it that way on all your bunkers, but it's great when you can.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

The difference is really dramatic.

I've never had the luxury of playing Chicago Golf Club and am hoping to do so in early October of this year.
The leading of a fairway into bunkers is something I've seen at NGLA.
I think it's appropriate where there's ample fairway width.

Over the years, by chance and probably by design as well, buffers of rough have expanded to the degree that it wasn't uncommon to see several feet of rough in front of the bunkers.  In some cases, more than a few yards.  It was almost like a science fiction movie where an organism begins to surround something and eventually envelops it.

I've noticed the same pattern in the U.S. with respect to streams and ponds, where fronting buffers of rough expanded from a few feet to more than a few yards.

In many, if not most cases, that expanision of buffer rough has been deliberate on the part of Green Committees.

The element of "fairness" seems to be a major culprit.

As you stated, the right physical conditions have to exist, but, in many cases, especially with older courses, those conditions were there from the get go.

In many cases, the situation isn't necessarily driven by maintainance and terrain as much as it's driven by cultural and political influences.

In order to eliminate those buffers, the first order of business is recognition of the problem. 
Not unlike green shrinkage, Rough "creep" doesn't jump out at most, it tends to be more insidious.

Once the issue/problem is recognized, a cure has to be concocted, taking into account the terrain and maintainance issues.

Then, the fun starts.
The political and cultural battles for the heart and soul of the golfers.

Mowing patterns and fairway alignments may have to be altered, but the results can be striking.
I wish I knew how to take photos and post them, because the before and after photos present an incredible contrast.
And, that contrast will result in significant alterations in play for the coming year.

Ian,

I'd love to see before and after photos, and, I'd love to know the golfer's reactions.
Keep us posted.

Mark,

I don't think the buffers of rough are a product of "poor design".
I think those buffers were created, either due to the short comings of modern equipment, the will of the membership, or a combination of both.

No, it's usually not the operator in the field that's determining buffer width, it's usually the members of the green committee.
While some operators will avoid what they perceive as a difficult or hazardous area, in general, these buffers are intentional, not accidental or the product of a nervous operator.

[Jud_T]

Pat,

When you're in Chicago you should try to also check out the work Prichard did at Skokie, it's very good.  

[Doug Siebert]

I prefer to ask when did bunkers start to become islands in the middle of the rough. Was it poor design or poor maintenance practises that led to this problem?

Patrick when you say "what other clubs have successfully embarked on a similar programme?" don't you mean who has got the mowers out, it's not really a programme just a bit of sensible mower driving!

My gut feeling is that it was probably a combination of things.

Number one, it is obviously it is less expensive to maintain less fairway, which encourages narrowing them which will sometimes isolate bunkers in the rough.  It is also less expensive to not mow right up to the sand, but rather leave a small collar of rough around the bunker (so that more time consuming mowing all the way to the sand can be done less often)  This has always been particularly galling to me when I see a bunker in the middle of the fairway that's surrounded by a collar of rough - I guess they don't want to risk anyone rolling into it!

Number two though was perhaps the drive for making courses more difficult that saw fairways narrowed, trees added, greens sped up, etc.

[Ronald Montesano]

This seems to be just the typed of thread where Ian Andrew would have jumped in, salient point like a dagger, thrust at the lot of us.

Did the embelishers of the 50s and 60s, the preachers of big, hearty golf, build center-line bunkers or did they prefer to use them as yellow lines, restricting traffic to their appropriate lanes of play? I'd say that rough around bunkers followed soon after.

Supers and Groundsmen on this GCA forum, speak up! What negative is there for doing what Patrick observes at his MRCC? Does amount of traffic/play preclude this practice?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ron,

I don't think the "amount" of play/traffic has any bearing on the juxtaposition of fairways and bunkers.

Mountain Ridge is a 1929 Donald Ross with very little in the way of amendments since 1929.

There is a huge cross bunker on #  6, and the fairway has been brought right up to it.

I was primarily referencing flanking fairway and fronting green side bunkers.

There are 3-4 holes with streams cutting through or adjacent to fairways and I'll try to take a look at them on my next visit.

[Ian Larson]

This seems to be just the typed of thread where Ian Andrew would have jumped in, salient point like a dagger, thrust at the lot of us.

Did the embelishers of the 50s and 60s, the preachers of big, hearty golf, build center-line bunkers or did they prefer to use them as yellow lines, restricting traffic to their appropriate lanes of play? I'd say that rough around bunkers followed soon after.

Supers and Groundsmen on this GCA forum, speak up! What negative is there for doing what Patrick observes at his MRCC? Does amount of traffic/play preclude this practice?

Not at all

[Josh Smith]

I can report that at Cal Club we started doing it after our project of regrassing entire golf course finished and it has been VERY painless.  I don't see any cost savings with the ring of rough.  And if there was a couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars a year, the benefit completely outweighs it.  If you are heading towards a bunker, ala the courses at Bandon Dunes, your ball will end up in that bunker.  I get great joy out of seeing other peoples balls follow that path, not as much watching mine.

Josh

[RJ_Daley]

Don't get me wrong, I also love the maintenance meld of firm and fast FW-->Green with FW mowed up to bunkers, capturing the bunker's influence to positioning of it's surrounds as well as the immediate target of the sand itself when they have gathering contours.  Also, the slopes behind built up bunkers that offer speed slot bounds if you really take them on and carry them.  But... low mowing into water hazards such as creeks and ponds are a mixed bag, IMO.   Yes, they can add more thinking and deft touch positioning if the FW and near rough are not maintained longer leading into the water hazards, and allowing them to have the full penalty effect.  But don't you think that with regard to water hazards, the longer buffers and rough are mostly to keep play moving along, not fishing excursions in the middle of rounds, and endless fussing with ball drops, deciding where the proper drop can be played, etc?  I know the better players will say, that is why it is called a penalty and that is why more thinking and care can be injected into the golf round experience.  And, maybe at great architectural designs where the creeks and ponds or lakes have been carefully incorporated into the design, and at private or less busy courses, that may be so.  But, the typical parkland public course that is busy, and has a number of water features, simply get slowed down with more likelihood of shots bounding into water, IMHO.  That is why nearly every regular public golfer playing parkland water hazard golf courses has a ball retriever... 

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

Then why have any water features ?

Why dumb down or diminish the architectural and playability function of the feature.

Does the creation of a more benign golf course inherently diminish the quality and attractiveness of the golf course ?

Who would want to play a "sanitized" golf course, one with diminished challenges, especially when the defenses you propose diminish the golfers need to think, plan and execute ?

[Carl Nichols]

I can report that at Cal Club we started doing it after our project of regrassing entire golf course finished and it has been VERY painless.  I don't see any cost savings with the ring of rough.  And if there was a couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars a year, the benefit completely outweighs it.  If you are heading towards a bunker, ala the courses at Bandon Dunes, your ball will end up in that bunker.  I get great joy out of seeing other peoples balls follow that path, not as much watching mine.

Josh

Josh:
I loved that feature of Cal Club.  I also found the bunkers to be quite difficult, once in them.

[Jason Topp]

Patrick:

I love gathering bunkers but have never had a clear understanding of the maintenence issues they create and whether they are significant.  I have always assumed that one reason we do not see more of them is the potential for water to gather in the bunker. 

I am also unclear on whether significant maintenence issues arise when one eliminates the strip of rough between the fairway and the bunker. 

[Jaeger Kovich]

I can report that at Cal Club we started doing it after our project of regrassing entire golf course finished and it has been VERY painless.  I don't see any cost savings with the ring of rough.  And if there was a couple hundred or a couple thousand dollars a year, the benefit completely outweighs it.  If you are heading towards a bunker, ala the courses at Bandon Dunes, your ball will end up in that bunker.  I get great joy out of seeing other peoples balls follow that path, not as much watching mine.

Josh

Josh - I completely agree... I thought Cal Club was really good with this. I was impressed with the Greenway Golf methods.


San Francisco GC was also incredibly good (I understand they have made tremendous changes). After seeing a few of the renovation projects Jim Urbina was involved with this spring, I'd say a lot of the credit goes to him and the supers (Bob Klinestecker @ SFGC) who does this with long range plans. Pasatiempo was also clearly moving towards this.

What I like so much about this on many sites of particularly large scale, like CC of SF and SFGC it that it allows the entire landscape to feel its proper size and grandeur. With additional mowing lines and different height cuts, The landscape will appear smaller, and more broken up by the hand of man instead of staying true to its nature. At CC of SF and SFGC the huge trees and the large amount of bunkers tie the landscape together, having grass lines that compliment the architecture takes these 2 courses to a higher level.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I love gathering bunkers but have never had a clear understanding of the maintenence issues they create and whether they are significant.  I have always assumed that one reason we do not see more of them is the potential for water to gather in the bunker. 

I am also unclear on whether significant maintenence issues arise when one eliminates the strip of rough between the fairway and the bunker. 

Jason,

I think you have to differentiate a "gathering" bunker from a bunker that receives balls deflected by the adjacent fairway or bunkers where the fairway leads into them.

In both situaions, drainage is not an issue.

Picture a bunker sitting atop a slight rise, now picture the fairway leading to the bunker as closely mown rising up to the bunker.
Why would that create a drainage issue ?

When the nearby land deflects the ball into a bunker it does not necessarily create a drainage problem.

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I fear that the reasons for not seeing the maintenance standards you set forth in the OP are related to ease and cost.  It makes sense that a line mown with less care--i.e. less detail--would be faster and inherently easier for a utility mower or fairway mower.  I look at some of the pictures from the fairway bunkering at Merion and see a relatively straight forward mowing pattern and a misplaced emphasis on fairway width as a defense.  Subsequently, those well positioned bunkers are now surrounded by rough.  

As with many things in our nation, what used to be a standard for quality is now considered haute or delicacy.  My mom's cooking from my childhood is now $50 per person in Manhattan.  No one takes their time and the things worth celebrating as "the way they should be" are considered inconvenient.

As an aside, using clubs like Mountain Ridge, Chicago Golf and National Golf Links as the examples for courses of less means is somewhat perplexing.  These clubs have the means to justify the more intricate mowing needed when working closely with bunkers.  Some courses do not.

[Ian Larson]

A line mown with less care is neither faster nor easier. It's just laziness pure and simple. Mowing lines that have moved significantly over time are the result of lazy operators and even lazier superintendents who don't follow up. I make it a routine to drive the course with my spraypaint every other week to dot tee, fairway, approach and green perimeters. It's amazing how far lines can be moved in a matter of weeks more less years. So when I see a golf hole with aircraft carrier straight edged fairways with an assortment of fairway bunkers WAY out in the rough the first thing I think is pure laziness by operator and superintendent.

[Ben Sims]

Ian,

Call me crazy, but I think going somewhere in a straight line is quicker than a curved one. 

[Ian Larson]

On the field and in day to day golf course maintenance the guy on the fairway mower isn't getting done any quicker by being lazy and not taking his time on the perimeter clean up cuts. Being detailed and proactive in the day to day mowing takes no more time to get the job done. We are talking about lines encroaching day to day over time inch by inch. The only way mowing a straight line becomes quicker in day to day mowing is if the super comes out with a spray can and completely straightens out every fairway edge in one shot. We're talking about inch by inch over time that a fairway line can move and how the result can end up with fairway bunkers that once were mown up to are now isolated by ten yards of rough. The effort it takes by the operator in day to day mowing and the effort it takes for the super to maintain the edges is no more effort than not doing it. Any job worth doing is worth doing right. Encroached lines are laziness on all levels of the maintenance staff.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for this thread Patrick. I think eliminating rings of rough around bunkers would be a big improvement but am surprised when I look at aerials because I do not see the big name courses in the US taking that approach, at least as it looks from above.

Does anyone have good examples of high profile courses have eliminated rings of rough around bunkers?
 

[Ben Sims]

On the field and in day to day golf course maintenance the guy on the fairway mower isn't getting done any quicker by being lazy and not taking his time on the perimeter clean up cuts. Being detailed and proactive in the day to day mowing takes no more time to get the job done. We are talking about lines encroaching day to day over time inch by inch. The only way mowing a straight line becomes quicker in day to day mowing is if the super comes out with a spray can and completely straightens out every fairway edge in one shot. We're talking about inch by inch over time that a fairway line can move and how the result can end up with fairway bunkers that once were mown up to are now isolated by ten yards of rough. The effort it takes by the operator in day to day mowing and the effort it takes for the super to maintain the edges is no more effort than not doing it. Any job worth doing is worth doing right. Encroached lines are laziness on all levels of the maintenance staff.

Solid explanation and agreed.  Gradual shifting is to blame, not a fell swoop of changes.  Agreed re: laziness as well. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I fear that the reasons for not seeing the maintenance standards you set forth in the OP are related to ease and cost.  

Ben,

I think otherwise.
I think it's ignorance, "fairness" and a resistance to change.

The cost is nominal and it's certainly easy to do in most cases.

It makes sense that a line mown with less care--i.e. less detail--would be faster and inherently easier for a utility mower or fairway mower.  I look at some of the pictures from the fairway bunkering at Merion and see a relatively straight forward mowing pattern and a misplaced emphasis on fairway width as a defense.  Subsequently, those well positioned bunkers are now surrounded by rough.  


The trend toward narrower fairways is certainly an impediment.
But, the major problem is, people see Merion, Oakmont, Baltusrol on TV when those courses were prepared specifically to defend par against the greatest golfers in the world, and they want to import those conditions to their home course.  Over and over and over again I hear that theme and see that misguided influence.

As with many things in our nation, what used to be a standard for quality is now considered haute or delicacy.  My mom's cooking from my childhood is now $50 per person in Manhattan.  No one takes their time and the things worth celebrating as "the way they should be" are considered inconvenient.

There's certainly elements of truth in that.

As an aside, using clubs like Mountain Ridge, Chicago Golf and National Golf Links as the examples for courses of less means is somewhat perplexing.  These clubs have the means to justify the more intricate mowing needed when working closely with bunkers.  Some courses do not.


Why do you assume that it's intricate ?
Why do you assume that the cost is substantive ?

In MOST cases, this is how those old courses were designed.

It's only the modern trend to accomodate "fairness", and maybe laziness, that resulted in the creation of rough buffers.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

I think there are two basic reasons for the buffers of rough.
One is the laziness element you cite.
The other is the intent, by the green committee, to insert "fairness' into the play of the game by introducing "safety nets" of barrier roughs.

One of the things I noticed in the UK when I last visited was that the fairways were mown close to the hazards, whereas, in the U.S. there's almost always a substantive buffer of rough.

The funny thing is, in the old days, they got it right with big gang mowers, so you'd think that the modern day mower could handle this easily.

Sunday I was with some fellows and they declared that the change in the relationship between fairways and bunkers had dramatically altered the play of the course, especially strategy and execution.

And yet, Donald Ross didn't accidently insert his bunkers into the terrain, he didn't do it as an afterthought, he did it knowing how they would interact with the terrain and how the golfer would have to account for that.