When F&F blends with the architectural

[Ben Sims]

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 accommodate "fairness", and maybe laziness, that resulted in the creation of rough buffers.

[/quote]

Patrick,

Intricacy is measured by the detail associated.  It is simply more detailed to run a mower close to a bunker edge than keep it further away.  You're not looking at reel overlap on the edge, worried about hurting the edge, falling off into it, etc.  Mowing close to a defined bunker edge just seems more intricate than mowing further away from it.  Would you rather drive in the middle of the highway or right next to the railing?

Cost substantive may have been a bit off in my initial post.  It probably isn't substantive from a cost perspective, but maybe from a professionalism or manpower perspective. 

Old courses weren't mowed in the way they're mowed today.  Do you think they were mowing fairway grass at 0.4-0.5 inches right up to the road bunker on #7 at The National like they do today?  I doubt it.  I also think their mowing was slower and less frequent which would increase detail. 

Over time, features have changed due to ease of maintenance.  Think of #12 at GCGC.  Wasn't it ease of maintenance that changed that great hole?

[Sean_A]

I think part of the problem with rough breaking the line to bunkers is scruffiness.  If the grass is cut short to the bunker there is a decent risk of browning out or getting thin patches just because of the type of traffic around a bunker - especially if carts are allowed inside the cart paths.  To me, many of these maintenance issues come back to the willingness of the membership to accept blemishes here and there for the sake of top notch playability.  Golfers have to become more attuned to how a course plays rather than how it looks.  That can be a hard sell for some memberships which have very high dues. 

Ciao 

[Patrick_Mucci]

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 accommodate "fairness", and maybe laziness, that resulted in the creation of rough buffers.

Patrick,

Intricacy is measured by the detail associated.  It is simply more detailed to run a mower close to a bunker edge than keep it further away. 

That depends upon the proximity and orientation of the bunker to the adjacent fairway and the terrain that fairway and bunker reside on
You're not looking at reel overlap on the edge, worried about hurting the edge, falling off into it, etc.

That may or may not be irrelevant, depending on the location, configuration and orientation of the bunker, the fairway and the terrain.

You're painting yourself into a corner based upon your preconceived idea regarding the physical properties of these features, and you're obviously ignoring rolling or pitching terrain

  Mowing close to a defined bunker edge just seems more intricate than mowing further away from it. 

Only because you have a preconceived notion of how the features relate to each other in terms of their physical properties and the influencing terrain

Would you rather drive in the middle of the highway or right next to the railing?

Depends, if it's a steep banked highway and I'm traveling at a high rate of speed, I want to be down low next to the railing.

You're position is  trapped in pre-conceived notions

Cost substantive may have been a bit off in my initial post.  It probably isn't substantive from a cost perspective, but maybe from a professionalism or manpower perspective. 

Manpower equates to cost

Old courses weren't mowed in the way they're mowed today.  Do you think they were mowing fairway grass at 0.4-0.5 inches right up to the road bunker on #7 at The National like they do today?  I doubt it.

The height of the fairway is irrelevant.  Whether it was cut at one inch, half an inch or one tenth of an inch doesn't matter, it's the concept/practice, not the height of the cut.   

I also think their mowing was slower and less frequent which would increase detail. 

Those gang mowers moved at a pretty good pace

Over time, features have changed due to ease of maintenance.  Think of #12 at GCGC.  Wasn't it ease of maintenance that changed that great hole?

Not in the context you believe in.

Vandalism, and the damage created by it were the primary factors, not routine maintenance  played a huge part
[/quote]

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

Well of course it depends on terrain, orientation, and shape.  And I want to be clear, I am not agruing against the premise.  My opinion is that the only way for a fairway bunker to play is directly involving itself with the fairway!  Which inherently means that fairway length grass is right up to the bunker.

But there must be a reason that it became more accepted or the norm that bunkers had rough around them on the "playing side" of the bunker.  I don't think it is wholly attributtal to fairway narrowing.  My assertion is that it is easier to mow a few feet away from a bunker than right beside it, especially on riding mowers.  I don't think it's based on any preconcieved notion, just my own experiences in operating expensive equipment in close quarters. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Well of course it depends on terrain, orientation, and shape.  And I want to be clear, I am not agruing against the premise.  My opinion is that the only way for a fairway bunker to play is directly involving itself with the fairway!  Which inherently means that fairway length grass is right up to the bunker.

But there must be a reason that it became more accepted or the norm that bunkers had rough around them on the "playing side" of the bunker.

If fairways went up to the bunkers years ago, with the old maintenance equipment, it's counter intuitive to argue that modern day, more agile and efficient equipment caused the buffers of rough to expand.

It's the element of "fairness" that's responsible for expanded buffers of rough, not equipment and it's use.

I don't think it is wholly attributtal to fairway narrowing.  My assertion is that it is easier to mow a few feet away from a bunker than right beside it, especially on riding mowers.  I don't think it's based on any preconcieved notion, just my own experiences in operating expensive equipment in close quarters. 

If they could do it 80 and 60 years ago, why can't they do it today with modern, more agile equipment

[Ben Sims]

If fairways went up to the bunkers years ago, with the old maintenance equipment, it's counter intuitive to argue that modern day, more agile and efficient equipment caused the buffers of rough to expand.

It's the element of "fairness" that's responsible for expanded buffers of rough, not equipment and it's use. [/b][/size][/color]

I don't think it is wholly attributtal to fairway narrowing.  My assertion is that it is easier to mow a few feet away from a bunker than right beside it, especially on riding mowers.  I don't think it's based on any preconcieved notion, just my own experiences in operating expensive equipment in close quarters. 

If they could do it 80 and 60 years ago, why can't they do it today with modern, more agile equipment

[/quote]

We'll have to agree to disagree.  I think it's laziness and poor mowing techniques for the sake of speed over the course of time that has sequestered bunkers into the roughs. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

If it was simply laziness and poor mowing techniques, as you assert, a simple directive from the Green Chairman and/or Superintendent would fix the problem in short order.

But, instead, the problem persists.

Do you think club Presidents and club Boards would tolerate incompetence and/or insubordination over an extended period of time ?

It's the "fairness" element, not technique or inexperience

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think part of the reason for the shift is simply the expansion of irrigation systems.

In the good old days, fairways weren't watered much at all [or spottily], so that whether or not the fairway was mowed all the way into the bunker, the ground was really firm and the rough was pretty wispy and the ball usually got to the bunker.

It's only the modern demands for uniform rough, and green grass everywhere, that made it matter exactly how close to the bunker the grass is being mowed.

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

If it was simply laziness and poor mowing techniques, as you assert, a simple directive from the Green Chairman and/or Superintendent would fix the problem in short order.

But, instead, the problem persists.

Do you think club Presidents and club Boards would tolerate incompetence and/or insubordination over an extended period of time ?

It's the "fairness" element, not technique or inexperience

I think the gradual nature of the mowing errors are partly to blame.

But, this is the first post you've made that has caused me to think it is primarily a fairness issue.  I still think it is a maintenance issue as well, but the fairness element does enter into my thinking after you bring up the persistance of the issue.

However, I will use the gradual elevation of greens surfaces by decades of topdressing as an example of gradual maintenance that has caused an "architectural element."  Some clubs tout the repelling nature of the edges of their greens when in actuality, all it is a few inches of topdressing build up.  Some restoration archies will talk about a bunker they "found" when it was really a removed stump from a few years earlier.

[JMEvensky]

It's the "fairness" element, not technique or inexperience

I'm with you.

I'd almost say that the fairness issue (a miserable euphemism,btw) is the reason for as many maintenance decisions as is cost.And,the ultimate irony is that chasing fairness,a fool's errand, is the most costly line in a maintenance budget--groomed bunkers,manicured fairways,manicured multiple tee boxes,etc.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

That's true, modern irrigation has gotten to the micro level allowing for the maintenance of select areas.

But, the introduction of irrigation into those areas signifies intent.
Intent to create that buffer, and as such, I think it goes back to the "fairness" issue

[Troy Fink]

I like the concept of mowing the fairway cut to the edge of the bunker sand. I like it when I see it on tv. I like it at courses in pictures I've seen. I think I've seen it in person, but can't remember for sure. I have imagined it  on courses I've played. I see places I would like to do it on the course I take care of.

Usually architects dictate fairway lines, which are sometimes changed by committees and superintendents.
Patrick, I'll jump on your wagon and say we should see more of it.

 There are cases where it would be easier to maintain and more difficult. Mowing stripes in the fairways calls for tedious turns at the bunker edge which do add time. Courses that have single or double row irrigation have less uniform coverage on the edges of the hole where bunkers typically are. This scenario might call for hand watering to maintain adequate turf health. A higher height of cut usually means a better ability to handle stress. In some cases a riding mower would eliminate hand mowing and make it easier to maintain. In the days of gang mowers on the fwys I can imagine half the reel hanging over the edge and tearing it up, which could have been a reason to have a strip of rough. 

I hope I get the opportunity to incorporate more short cut turf closer to the bunker edge, and will try to share it of I do.
 
It's unfortunate that rain washes bunkes out, because I like the idea of the edge of the fwy sloping into a bunker, and acting as a funnel that makes the bunker larger than it appears. Certainly a bunker could be built to drain fast enough, but may be too expensive in a lot of cases. Overall I'd like to see more fwy grass up to the sand edge and prefer to find ways to do it with maintenance vs not, keeping in mind the feasabity of the situation.

[Doug Siebert]

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.

If the lines moved a mere 1/4" each time they are mowed you would never notice unless you are checking something other than the quality of the mowing job itself (i.e., measuring distance from features, using differential GPS, or buried markers)

But with that 1/4" per mowing, when mowing twice a week for 30 weeks that's over a foot a year, and in a few decades the hole would be quite different.

[Doug Siebert]

I think part of the problem with rough breaking the line to bunkers is scruffiness.  If the grass is cut short to the bunker there is a decent risk of browning out or getting thin patches just because of the type of traffic around a bunker - especially if carts are allowed inside the cart paths.  To me, many of these maintenance issues come back to the willingness of the membership to accept blemishes here and there for the sake of top notch playability.  Golfers have to become more attuned to how a course plays rather than how it looks.  That can be a hard sell for some memberships which have very high dues. 

Ciao 

Simple fix there, have a rule that carts can't come within 15 feet of a bunker.  Might take a little education of the golfers, but most keep away from tees and greens.  Might need a few of the signs or little ropes around bunkers that are more prone to such damage, but many courses already do that for every green anyway.

[Dan_Lucas]

Buffers around water hazards are in many cases suggested if not regulated by each states DEQ to filter run-off and keep fertilizer and pesticide applications away from the water.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Buffers around water hazards are in many cases suggested if not regulated by each states DEQ to filter run-off and keep fertilizer and pesticide applications away from the water.

Dan,

Would you cite just five (5) examples where the State dictated the amount of rough (dimensional offset) that had to be maintained between the hazard and the fairway at an existing golf course ?  And, could you indicate which agency in which state dictated those terms ?

Thanks

[Jim Sherma]

This is obviously a naive question for many here, but...   I do not know the history of #12 at Garden City. I've seen it referenced many times and if someone could post a before and after for me it would be greatly appreciated.

[Dan_Lucas]

Buffer Zone Management for Golf Courses
BUFFER STRIP BASICS
Golf course design concepts have changed dramatically over the years. Modern design
practices encourage designers and architects to incorporate the natural features of the
landscape into the overall design of a golf course. This helps to create a more natural
appearance and also to protect the surrounding environment from degradation. The use
of buffer zones and landscaping with native vegetation is often standard practice on new
course designs and is being incorporated into existing courses.
Michigan golf course landscapes commonly feature water as an integral part of the design
and challenge of the course. Water features range from the majestic Great Lakes to inland
lakes, ponds, streams and wetlands. Golf course superintendents recognize their role as
stewards of the environment and strive to incorporate best management practices in their
day- to- day operations. Integrating buffer zones on existing courses can be challenging
because space adjacent to waterways may be limited due to the layout of the golf holes.
This series of fact sheets will focus upon techniques to incorporate buffer zones on
existing golf courses. These techniques may also be applied to newly constructed golf
courses if they were not included in the original design. Many good references exist for
those planning new golf courses. The “Landscape Restoration Handbook,” published by
Lewis Publishers and copyrighted by the United States Golf Association, is a particularly
helpful reference for those in the planning stages of a new golf course. When
interviewing potential design firms, it is important to determine if they have staff trained
in evaluating natural resources and methods to reduce impacts to high quality resources
on the site or the surrounding area.
Definition of Buffers
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality defines a buffer as a vegetated area
adjacent to a waterbody (i.e. river, stream, wetland, lake) that may consist of natural
undeveloped land where the existing vegetation is left intact or it may be land planted
with vegetation designed to maximize protection. Buffers are often designed to intercept
surface runoff and subsurface flow from upland sources in order to filter pollutants before
they enter surface waters and groundwater recharge areas.
For use on golf courses, we will define buffers as any vegetated areas, natural or planted,
that are designed to minimize the effects of human activities on the environment and
maximize the protection of natural resources. These areas may be directly adjacent to
waterbodies or positioned anywhere within the golf course property where they are
deemed to be beneficial for protecting human, plant, animal, air or soil resources. Areas
directly adjacent to waterbodies will be referred to as riparian buffers in these fact sheets.
2
Benefits of Buffers
Buffer strips can perform many valuable functions including the following:
v  Trap and filter sediment
v  Trap and filter nutrients, pesticides and animal waste
v  Stabilize eroding banks
v  Provide shade to cool the water
v  Provide wildlife habitat
v  Enhance aquatic habitat
v  Can be designed to deter nuisance species like geese
v  Reduce or eliminate time- consuming string trimming or walk mowing
v  Provide large woody debris for aquatic habitat
v  Food source for aquatic habitat
Riparian forests and grass communities have been shown to substantially reduce the
amount of nitrogen reaching surface waters. Microbes in organic forest soils and
wetlands convert nitrate into nitrogen gas through denitrification. Tree and plant roots
help stabilize streambanks and provide protection from erosion.
Shade from riparian forest buffers keep water temperatures cooler and reduce
temperature fluctuations. This can be especially important in cold- water trout streams.
Streamside forests are also important in the food chain of aquatic systems. Organic
compounds such as leaves, fruit, limbs, and insects fall into the stream and decay. These
compounds are fed upon by stream bacteria, fungi and invertebrates and provide the
foundation of the aquatic food chain. Fallen trees and branches also create favorable
habitat areas for fish.
Buffers are also important areas for wildlife and can be designed to attract a variety of
wildlife including songbirds, butterflies, and small mammals. Properly designed, they can
add interesting and aesthetic viewing opportunities for golf course patrons. The linear
nature of many riparian buffers not only provides food and cover for animals, but they
also serve as travel corridors between habitat areas. This connection is important in
maintaining biological diversity and prevents the fragmentation of habitat. Alternately,
buffers can be designed to discourage unwanted species such as geese. When buffers are
located directly adjacent to waterbodies, geese are often reluctant to venture through tall
vegetation when exiting the water for fear of predators on the other side.
Golf Course Inputs
The primary pollutants of concern on golf courses are nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus), pesticides, and sediment that could potentially migrate into nearby water.
Research conducted to investigate the movement of nutrients and pesticides from golf
courses reveals that wise management practices can minimize the potential for these
products to contaminate water supplies. Some studies suggest turfgrass areas generally
rank second only to undisturbed forests in their ability to prevent pesticides and nutrients
3
from reaching groundwater and surface water. The utilization of buffer strips is an added
practice to help safeguard waterbodies from nutrients or pesticides that are not utilized by
turfgrass.
Buffer Zone Concepts
Much of the information available on the design of buffer zones is based upon a “Threezone
Buffer Concept” recommended by agencies such as the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and the USDA Forest Service. This concept divides the
areas directly adjacent to a stream into zones, beginning at the water’s edge and moving
outward. These agencies recommend that Zone 1 (next to the water’s edge) should
remain an area of undisturbed mature trees. Zone 2 consists of an area of managed forest
where plant material may be periodically harvested. Zone 3 is an area of dense grasses
and/or forbs (such as wildflowers or broad- leaved herbaceous plants). This zone is
periodically mowed or harvested in order to remove nutrients stored in plant materials.
Phosphorus becomes physically bound up in plant materials. If it is not removed, the
vegetation can reach a saturation point where it is no longer effective in removing
nutrients.
Many government agencies use fixed buffer widths in their standards while others
recommend a range of widths in order to perform a specific function. For example, the
NRCS specifies the following buffer zone widths for various conditions:
A. Establishment of riparian forest buffers to reduce pollution by sediment,
nutrients, pesticides, or other pollutants and restore overall water quality. The
total combined width of all three zones will be not less than 55 feet.
B. Establishment of riparian forest buffers to provide wildlife habitat, maintain or
restore water temperature, and provide large woody debris. The total
combined width of the first two zones will not be less than 100 feet.
C. Establishment of riparian forest buffers in areas with existing woody plants
that need enhancement and are less than 100 feet wide. The total combined
width of the first two zones will not be less than 100 feet.
D. Establishment of riparian forest buffers in areas with existing woody plants
that exceed 100 feet in width. The total combined width of the first two zones
will not be less than 100 feet .
Please refer to the NRCS web site for more information on these specifications:
http://w ww.mi.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical_References_and_Data/Michigan_Tech_Guide/Ri
parianForestBuffer391.pdf
The width of buffer zones can vary depending upon space. Studies have shown that a
range of buffer widths from 3m to 200m have been effective, depending upon site
specific conditions. In most cases, a buffer of at least 100 feet is necessary to fully
protect aquatic resources. Studies have shown that negative impacts to aquatic
invertebrates occur on streams with buffer zones less than 100 feet. If 100 feet is not
4
available, smaller buffers still afford some level of protection to the water body and are
preferable to no buffer at all.
Using Buffers On Golf Courses
In developing criteria for buffer zones on golf courses, it is necessary to distinguish
between in- play and out-of- play areas. For existing golf courses, the use of standard fixed
width buffer zones is not practical. Space limitations require more flexibility. Based upon
a review of current buffer design concepts, scientific literature and collaboration with
governmental agencies in Michigan, a flexible zone system for both in- play and out- ofplay
areas has been developed for use on golf courses. The specific dimensions of the
buffer are adjusted based on the site conditions and available space. The in- play buffer
zone system incorporates a series of gradually increasing mowing heights adjacent to the
water. Research has shown that even buffer zones of 3-inch tall grass will provide some
level of protection for streams, lakes, and ponds from pesticides and nutrient pollution
when grown between shorter, high maintenance turf and water bodies. The soils, slope,
play of the golf hole and available space will determine the size of each buffer zone.
Buffer widths should be maximized to the extent possible to provide the most protection
of aquatic resources.
The criteria for in- play areas differs from the traditional three- zone approach in the
following manner:
v  A management plan for inputs will be implemented for each in- play buffer
zone area
v  A series of increased mowing heights of turf grass are incorporated into the
in-play zones
v  The in- play areas require turf grass to be less than 8 inches tall to allow play
v  Not all zones must be used in each situation depending upon space limitations
The criteria for the out-of- play areas are similar to the traditional three- zone concept.
However, they have been revised to allow more flexibility in areas where either space or
other considerations require a different treatment.
Public Education
Public education is an important element in the successful implementation of any buffer
zone strategy on golf courses. Some golf course managers have been forced to remove
buffer plantings because of member complaints. Many golfers have become accustomed
to the manicured look common on older golf courses. They may view the introduction of
buffer plantings as unattractive weeds that eat golf balls. Therefore, it is recommended
that golf course managers and superintendents educate their clientele before, during and
after the implementation of buffer plantings. Newsletters, fact sheets, membership
meetings, and interpretive signing along the golf course are all mechanisms for informing
the public about the merits of buffers.
5
Authors
Gregory T. Lyman, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, 584 Plant and Soil Sciences Building,
East Lansing, MI 48824-1325. Phone (517) 353-0860; fax (517) 355-0270; e-mail
lyman@msu.edu .
Erica Staton, Stu Kogge, and Tom Bennett. The Institute for Wetland and Coastal Trainings and
Research, 4245 Beeman Road, Williamston, Michigan 48895. Phone (517) 655-9754; e-mail:
tombennett@wetlandcoastal.com
Acknowledgements
These fact sheets were made possible through a grant received from the Office of the Great
Lakes, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality.
Thanks is also extended to the following organizations who participated in the steering committee
involved in developing criteria for implementing buffer strips on Michigan golf course properties:
•  Michigan State University – Department of Crop and Soil Sciences; Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife
•  Michigan Department of Environmental Quality – Surface Water Quality Division; Land and
Water Management Division
•  Michigan Department of Natural Resources – Wildlife Division; Fisheries Division
•  U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
•  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
•  Michigan Turfgrass Foundation
•  Golf Course Owners Association
•  Golf Course Architects Association

[Tom_Doak]

Tom Doak,

That's true, modern irrigation has gotten to the micro level allowing for the maintenance of select areas.

But, the introduction of irrigation into those areas signifies intent.
Intent to create that buffer, and as such, I think it goes back to the "fairness" issue

Patrick:

I wasn't referring to the micro-management of modern irrigation systems.  I was just talking about the transition from single row to multiple-row systems, 30 years ago.  That's when the edges of the fairways and the aprons of the bunkers started getting water for the first time, and balls started staying out of the bunkers.

Can you find me an old picture of an American course where it's clear that the fairway is mowed right down into the bunker?  That would have been really hard to do back in the days when they were gang-mowing the whole golf course.  But it didn't really matter until that area started getting watered.

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, Thanks for providing that info.

Interesting how the focus is on aquatic. I'm especially glad your course's buffer zones are NOT. Can you imagine the mosquitos?

Added cost to maintain aquatics does not seem like a sustainable model. Is it?

[Ian Larson]

I will say that at Atlantic City Country Club, which has the most extensive irrigation system with the most heads I've ever worked with in my life, looking into just mowing down the 2,3 and 4 foot strips of rough between fairway and bunker is NOT something we can just go do. There's going to be adjusting and lowering the hundreds of micro sprinklers circling every bunker edge, there's going to be sod cutting and leveling the edges to have a semi decent cut, there's going to be aerifying and interseeding appropriate grasses. We love seeing wilt here and easily keep the place firm and fast. But the decision to do this is not just about going out and scalping it down. Theres ALOT more to it and it differs from hole to hole and bunker to bunker. Coming from a guy who's out there everyday paying attention to mow lines because it's a huge pet peeve of mine, they move. And they move ALOT. And the move drastically at golf courses with poorly trained staff by dipshit supers who could care less about their fairways being shaped like straight hotdogs on every hole with great bunkering WAY out in the rough. I personally have never seen a golf committee implement huge buffers around the bunkers. I've only seen lazy mowing staff not being detail oriented with perimeter mowing and even lazier supers when it comes to maintaining the perimeters and properly training and supervising staff. A properly trained staff will mow a perimeter as meticulously as if they were mowing the edge of a 100 foot cliff. And their super is going to follow up and maintain the location of that edge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan Lucas,

Thanks for the nice article, but, it's just an article, not a state statute/regulation.

Could you post State statutes/regulations that prohibit fairway from coming close to water hazards, mandating that rough be used, on existing golf courses.

The buffers referenced in the article are not the buffers referenced in this thread.

Tom Doak,

I'll look for some pictures.
Those big gang mower operators were pretty good and were able to mow very close to greens, so I'd imagine that fronting greenside bunkers didn't present that big of an obstacle.  Of course, in those days, they weren't concerned with "pretty" patterns and being artiste's.

No question that the way courses were maintained in the 50's and 60's is dramatically different than today, and as a result, substance rather than form allowed balls to continue toward and into the hazards as opposed to being "safety netted" as they are today.

[Chip Gaskins]

Here some great examples of Merion and Chicago Golf Club's fairway bunkers.

Man I love this maintenance meld, makes the bunker play so much larger.





Also, here is the outside dogleg bunker at Merion #14 at the Walker Cup a few years ago.  One bunker shaved nicely, the other shaggy like :-)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chip,

Thanks for the great photos.

One picture is worth a 1,000 words.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

That puts the issue into a far more complicated arena, since it's no longer, just, a question of mowing habits.
Now, your costs to effect the change are substantive