Brown - Green - Brown Fairways? Isn't there a better way?

[Dan_Lucas]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about Pinehurst's grass varieties or any other variables involved in their choices. I don't know whether Poa Annua is an issue there or not.

My viewpoint is that the biggest cause of overwatering is inconsistent irrigation coverage. That green stripe centering Pinehust's fairways is where the single row heads overlap (double coverage). The brown is where the overlap fades out into single coverage.

If you try to keep the edges green for regular resort play, you will be overwatering the center. If the grasses were fescue, the center stripe would turn into poa, or the outer edges would fade into dust without supplemental irrigation. If it was me, I would have gone with the 3 row system.

The other issue is from the architecture standpoint. How many courses do you know with continuous, even 180' corridors. I love it, makes irrigating and maintenance much easier, but most architects force irrigation geometry to conform to their art geometry.

[MClutterbuck]

In fairness, I didn't find the conditions at No. 2 this week very reflective of normal conditions that I have witnessed at the course. The USGA undoubtedly decreased irrigation in the days leading up to the tournament, resulting in the turf on the edges that generally receives water getting parched and browned out. For resort play, my experience is that there is a foot or two of turf on the perimeter of the fairway that receives inconsistent water and bleeds into the native areas while the rest of the fairway turf stays green. It's a much less jarring presentation visually.

Jason, if this is the case, then surely prior to this they were over irrigating the middle of the fairways. It reinforces my point, a more comprehensive irrigation system would have had a more even placement of water throughout the fairway, and with proper restraint and practices they could have delivered a firm and fast course, without overyl stressing the edges and using the same amount of water across the full year.

[JESII]

I think the ability/potential for unirrigated edges to transition to the sandy stuff is more effective makes a lot of sense and I hadn't thought of that so thank you Don for this paragraph...

"At P2 it looked like the best lies were down the middle, got a little more sketchy as you got closer to the edge, and then somewhat inconsistent as you got off the turf. The bleed out started from the middle, and it got dryer and firmer as you worked your way to the outer edges of the hole corridor. I thought it was absolute genius to maintain a course like that. I understand not all will agree, but as soon as the goal becomes a consistent look through the green, it's all lost, IMO."

I want to make it clear, I'm not looking for a consistent color across the playing area...that said, I do think a consistent maintenance of the playing surface is a worthwhile goal. In other owrds, I think the links courses all natural maintenance (with low spots green and high spots brown) is preferrable to what we saw at Pinehurst.

My real concern here is the phsycological challenge presentd by the two distinct options in irrigation system design.

With wall to wall irrigation on efficient computer systems as MClutterbuck has advocated here, the challenge is discipline. How can the club committ to not overusing it?   The other side I see is, as presented, there's going to be a real committment challenge to those in power at Pinehurst to remember and strive for what they presented last week and this. A year, maybe 2, maybe 5 down the road, someone is going to look at the prepared playing corridors and see some percentaage in poor condition due to lack of irrigation and decide a change needs to be made...what will that change be? Or will the club stay committed to this presentation through complaints from their $450/round guests?

[MClutterbuck]

Jim, great thread and great discussion from all. A slight correction to my position. I am not advocating a computer system necessarily. Yes if it is to control individual heads, and to apply water exactly where needed. But not to have an automated amount of water. I don't like the weather station, for example, applying water according to evapotranspiration rates. I would much rather see the hand of the skilled super walking every inch of the course, deciding where to apply water and where not to, taking huge care with wind conditions. A computer could be useful for example in setting irrigation to 0 on the partial heads next to native areas when there is wind, to avoid spraying and overgrowth. And yes, the challenge is discipline and education.

[JMEvensky]

I wish the USGA had used the "playability" argument rather than water conservation. My fear is that P2 was such a stark contrast to what a normal US Open venue looks like that a lot of people will see only 2 choices--emerald green or khaki. And there's not much question which side will get the more votes.

The people the USGA are trying to convince might not connect the "firmer conditions = greater playability/more fun" dots.

At least in my part of the world,trying to convince members that firmer conditions will be more fun is an easier argument.

[Jon Wiggett]

What a refreshing change. Good discussion with many views and no nasty comments or personal attacks.

A gradual transition from the middle is certainly a new way of looking at it to me but makes a lot of sense too. Too me it is always disappointing how many think about the various parts of a golf course and feel each block should play the same. Why should the lie in one part of the fairway be as good as elsewhere. Dealing with adversity is something that is, or at least should be an important challenge of the game.

Jon

[Ben Sims]

It's been interesting to see many on the Luddite golf site be either unwilling or unable to change their ideas on what ideal maintenance should be. There are many on this thread that I greatly respect in their opinions on golf courses. If we can't convince them that P2's irrigation is functional, attainable, and sustainable, then the average golfing public will be even harder to convince.

It's not that I think some of the opinions on this thread are wrong, it's more that I'm saddened by how many very knowledgeable folks are decrying what was done at P2 as a farce and a one off. 

[Dan_Lucas]

I certainly don't think it's a farce and it may work well in a lot of places. The people involved at Pinehurst are the only ones who have total knowledge of the variables and consequences of their decisions. One of the reasons I don't post much on turf issues at other golf courses is that every site is different. Without all the information available about that site, it is foolish to criticize. I am positive that Pinehurst has a plan in place to maintain that course as perfectly as they possibly can. They will be successful. I hope it helps the firm and fast cause.

If you were to poll the best grass growers in the world you would find that their programs are all different. Their are a lot of ways to achieve the desired result. It is much more about the feel for the turf needs than the products used.

[Jon Wiggett]

If you were to poll the best grass growers in the world you would find that their programs are all different.

This is one of the problems even within the greenkeeping community. Greenkeeping is not about growing the best sward from an agronomical standpoint but about presenting the golfer with the most interesting course to play.

(Dan, I am not saying this is your opinion but felt what you wrote (which I have taken out of context ) allowed for this opinion)

Jon

[Dan_Lucas]

By "best grass growers" I mean the ones that present the best playing surface. I don't care what color it is. Growing lush green turf is easy, conditioning a perfect playing surface is not.

[Don Mahaffey]

I like this thread.
My only strong disagreement is with Jim Sullivan who states that the playing conditions at Pinehurst will decline over the years.
I think that is an absolutely horrible assumption to make and I think he is 100% inaccurate, and not the classiest thing to say. 

I like to think of it like this. What Pinehurst did was show the world that the single row application DOES belong on the irrigation menu. It is an option to consider in some cases. That's it. They make it work and when I was last there the course was perfect and I expect them to recover from all the traffic and disruption of two opens and return to very nice conditions.

Will it work with cool season grasses, maybe, but it all depends on having ownership and staff that want it to work, and having the right environmental conditions.

Will it work in the south in an area that gets 30-40+ inches of precip and grows drought tolerant grasses on a good soil base, yes if that is the design intent.

What has been said over and over and can't be repeated enough is it is just one way of doing it and others will do it differently, but that doesn't make what P2 did wrong. And what I think is awesome, but hard for anyone to admit who speaks out against the renovation, is they would have ALL said it couldn't be done, but it was and it works. That, is food for thought.

[JMEvensky]

Don, Jim Sullivan doesn't need me to speak for him,but I inferred something different. I took Sully's comments to mean that Pinehurst MIGHT be forced to retreat due to marketing considerations. Namely,their biggest target demographic prefers the P2 they were familiar with--wall to wall green grass.

Like most of us, I hope Pinehurst stays the course. But it's not our investment on the line.

And like everyone has said,thanks to all the Supers and turf guys  who've weighed in with comments.This is a PhD level class in golf course maintenance.

[BCowan]

Don, Jim Sullivan doesn't need me to speak for him,but I inferred something different. I took Sully's comments to mean that Pinehurst MIGHT be forced to retreat due to marketing considerations. Namely,their biggest target demographic prefers the P2 they were familiar with--wall to wall green grass.

Like most of us, I hope Pinehurst stays the course. But it's not our investment on the line.

And like everyone has said,thanks to all the Supers and turf guys  who've weighed in with comments.This is a PhD level class in golf course maintenance.

I think P2 can start worrying about their investment when the green fees drop below $400.  As long as they stay on the Open rotation, their investment will be just fine.  Mid Pines has less wire grass than P2 i think and i believe many non gcaers like-love the changes.  The problem is there isn't enough explaining of the function of the new restoration by the broadcasters, just the aesthetics.

[JESII]

Don,

I'm not sure I've said the playing conditions "will decline over the years"...if so that was not my intent. My intent is to discuss the risk Pinehurst has taken (I'm always in support of risk takers) and discuss whether or not that type of risk was necessary to send the message they're hoping to send...a message I support every bit as much as you, even if I haven't lived it as you have...I guarantee it.

Let's take this section off the Pinehurst website and maybe you (and the other Greenkeepers here) can help me see that there really isn't much risk in their plan.

Irrigation
•Type of irrigation system: Toro Site Pro (radio controlled heads)
•Source of water: Lake Pinehurst
•Total number of irrigation heads: About 450 (reduced from more than 1,100 prior to restoration)
•Coverage on Fairways: Irrigation redesigned to cover fine turf areas minimizing irrigating areas where water is not needed
•Greens: Dual head part circle – 1 head for putting surfaces and 1 head for green slope

Taken from this page... http://pinehurstnumber2.com/MoreInformation_FactSheet.php

I just found this page this morning, in hopes of learning more about what Bob Farren has said the irrigation goal was/is.

Again, my concern is an eventual loss of maintenance quality at the edges of the in-play areas resulting in a conversion to either the sandy scrub or rough...a fairway that is 50 yards from "stuff" to "stuff" today may become 35 or 40 yards down the road, no? Once it's 35 or 40 yards wide on tilted, running fairways, not many people are going to play from the fairway...what does a golf resort think about that?

[JESII]

It's not that I think some of the opinions on this thread are wrong, it's more that I'm saddened by how many very knowledgeable folks are decrying what was done at P2 as a farce and a one off. 

Ben,

Am I one of the people you're addressing in this sentence? If not, I can ignore it...if so I'd be interested in discussing it.

[MClutterbuck]

It's not that I think some of the opinions on this thread are wrong, it's more that I'm saddened by how many very knowledgeable folks are decrying what was done at P2 as a farce and a one off. 

Ben,

Am I one of the people you're addressing in this sentence? If not, I can ignore it...if so I'd be interested in discussing it.

I have not read people decrying what was done at Pinehurst, on the contrary, I think we are all congratulating ownership, C&C and the greenskeepers. On the margin, on one small matter, we are asking ourselves if the same playing conditions could be established with a more comprehensive irrigation system delivering the same exact amount of water to a slightly wider part of the fairway, avoiding the more intense green in the middle, avoiding the super dry edges of fairways, not affecting native areas, and allowing for natural dryer spots on the higher sections and slightly greener on lower, a more natural look. If this provides same playabability, forget about changing P2, I just hope it might encourage more owners (and yes, developers selling houses) to adopt this type of conditions, with a great benefit to environment and golf.

Hopefully the huge praise all players had for the course will also influence architects/designers to encourage clients to take this approach, and as a compromise, offer a more comprehensive irrigation package that can deliver same playing conditions and slightly different aesthetics. I know P2 will help me a ton in convincing people about proper maintenance and course conditions at the 2 clubs I have some influence, but given both already have comprehensive irrigation systems, it is a matter of just toning down irrigation of the bermudas on one of them and to irrigate the fescues as little as possible as we go from grow in to playing.

[Ben Sims]

Jim,

Yes, you were one of those of which I was referring. Mr. Hutto, MClutterbuck, John Connolly were others.  This is one of those few times where I'm not inclined to call you an asshat with no real knowledge of the subject. And that's my big beef. You and the four other guys aren't really wrong about anything. You're stating an opinion that is based in obvious, strikingly brown, fact. I guess my issue is this:  after all we're starting to understand about the revolving door of costs on a golf course--even if your assertions re: these new-old-school maintenance practices have some validity--why are we looking for bad things to say about it? Water use is an issue. Turf inputs are an issue. Maintenance costs are an issue. What's really not an issue in my mind is how a golf course presents on television. There's only one tournament with that singular laser focus, and it's in Augusta in April. And they knock it out of the park year after year.

But the US Open is different. And there lies the issue for me. We--collectively on this website--have bitched and moaned for a decade about maintenance practices getting out of control. And they have. Listening to Don Mahaffey, Tom Doak, and a half dozen other very smart guys talk about what they've seen--evolutionary--in the turf and irrigation fields is shocking.  Whatever you think about Pinehurst's motivations for doing what they did is irrelevant. They are trying to lead. Lead by example. Even if you think it's for naught, why be a contributor to pessimism?

I'm not one of those that thinks they deserve a cookie for innovation. But I am in the camp that thinks they deserve mad props for being a leader. Sometimes being a leader means doing things that look or seem like insanity. That's where character and integrity come in. I think the guys at Pinehurst (as well as the entire C&C organization) have loads of character.

[MClutterbuck]

Jim,

Yes, you were one of those of which I was referring. Mr. Hutto, MClutterbuck, John Connolly were others.  This is one of those few times where I'm not inclined to call you an asshat with no real knowledge of the subject. And that's my big beef. You and the four other guys aren't really wrong about anything. You're stating an opinion that is based in obvious, strikingly brown, fact. I guess my issue is this:  after all we're starting to understand about the revolving door of costs on a golf course--even if your assertions re: these new-old-school maintenance practices have some validity--why are we looking for bad things to say about it? Water use is an issue. Turf inputs are an issue. Maintenance costs are an issue. What's really not an issue in my mind is how a golf course presents on television. There's only one tournament with that singular laser focus, and it's in Augusta in April. And they knock it out of the park year after year.

But the US Open is different. And there lies the issue for me. We--collectively on this website--have bitched and moaned for a decade about maintenance practices getting out of control. And they have. Listening to Don Mahaffey, Tom Doak, and a half dozen other very smart guys talk about what they've seen--evolutionary--in the turf and irrigation fields is shocking.  Whatever you think about Pinehurst's motivations for doing what they did is irrelevant. They are trying to lead. Lead by example. Even if you think it's for naught, why be a contributor to pessimism?

I'm not one of those that thinks they deserve a cookie for innovation. But I am in the camp that thinks they deserve mad props for being a leader. Sometimes being a leader means doing things that look or seem like insanity. That's where character and integrity come in. I think the guys at Pinehurst (as well as the entire C&C organization) have loads of character.

Ben, please see my previous comment and let me add that outside this group, I have only praised Pinehurst and actually asked the Board of my club to send out a letter to all the membership prior to the US Open to please look at the conditioning and setup as something we could learn from.

It is in this forum where I think it is valid to ask ourselves and debate if there are different ways to arrive to a common goal, in playability and environmental benefit.

[JESII]

I'm not looking for bad things to say about it...I'm looking to have an honest conversation about the risks going forward. I think we should be able to do that on here. I sincerely doubt any of the folks at Pinehurst would deny that there are risks and challenges to what they're doing.

To be clear, my issue with the color presentation wasn't the brown as you seem to think. My issue was with the green grass in a uniform line down the middle of each hole. It's not in the low spots as you see on linkes courses, it's simply within the sprinkler throw.

Pulled from the same page on the Pinehurst site as the previously posted "Irrigation" info:

Pinehurst No. 2 Characteristics
•Acres on No. 2: 196
•Acres of turf: 61 (87 prior to restoration)
•Acres of fairways: 41 (28 prior) of tightly-mown turf, including distressed areas no longer irrigated
•Acres of rough 0 (45 prior for regular play, 50 for past U.S. Open)
•Acres of tees and green surrounds: 17
•Square feet of greens: 115,000 (6,388 avg sq/ft)
•Number of sand bunkers: 111

My conversation/concern is around, specifically, the areas described as "tightly mown turf, including distressed areas no longer irrigated". Tightly mown and not irrigated presents an interesting visual. This where I see the challenge of either Discipline or Committment bearing their heads. What happens a few years down the road to these areas?

[hhuffines]

Pinehurst received little or no rain for the 2 weeks prior to the 1 inch thunderstorm Thursday night of the tournament.  They are over 2 inches short on rainfall for the month.   

Maybe another thread covers this but the effect a strong rain has on the "natural areas" is more concerning to me than the fairways.  Kaymer got a very unusual pine straw lie on #4 do to runoff and there were several ruts and places the crew had to clean sand into the nail on the head off the fairway. 

BTW, Adam has a great way of hitting the nail on the head with only a few words.

[Don Mahaffey]

Again, my concern is an eventual loss of maintenance quality at the edges of the in-play areas resulting in a conversion to either the sandy scrub or rough...a fairway that is 50 yards from "stuff" to "stuff" today may become 35 or 40 yards down the road, no? Once it's 35 or 40 yards wide on tilted, running fairways, not many people are going to play from the fairway...what does a golf resort think about that?

This is what I'm talking about. This implies that the changes are not well thought out, that they didn't know how to irrigate the turf areas,  that eventually the turf quality will regress or the playing areas will shrink. This is simply not the case and I know from someone very close to the renovation that their fear is not that the bermuda will shrink, but that it will expand.

Your mindset, or your assumptions, or what you've read, or been taught about irrigation and turf management does not apply to P2. You are simply way off, and until you have evidence that the conditions will get worse, I think you are off base to even imply it.

[Brent Hutto]

Don,

If the course gets better and better every single day and not one single negative possibility ever comes to pass then that's what happens. Or maybe it doesn't all work out so rosy and #2 becomes either a scruffy mess or gradually sells out the concept and reverts to green with Bermuda rough. Or maybe some in-between option we can't even imagine evolves there, only time will tell.

While it's reassuring that your well-placed sources are so sanguine about the long-term benefits of this approach, I'd suggest there is scant precedent for anything like this particular throw-back approach on a modern resort course. So ultimately we'll have to wait and see.

On the larger point of whether those four days on television last week will become some sort of watershed that eventually leads to the entire world of golf converting to burnt-out-looking lean, mean and brown courses...to me that seems unlikely in the extreme. I just don't see any groundswell of desire for those visuals or those playing conditions among your everyday punter.

I still come back to a comparison I posed earlier, in this or one of the other threads. My memory is that the last US Open at Shinnecock was a fairly lean, mean and brown affair with wicked ball-rejecting greens. Albeit with wispy fescue grass roughs instead of sandy scruff with stemmy weeds. What would make the 2014 US Open at #2 a catalyst for the entire industry changing over to a new aesthetic and a new conditioning model while the 2003 US Open at Shinnecock was simply viewed as a tragic failure of the USGA's setup?

[Don Mahaffey]

Why would you write that first sentence? Who ever said that?
I get it, you hate it, fine.

I just happen to think they know what they are doing.

The difference is the USGA always tries to dry it down and in '04 they went too far.
But, they have never talked openly about saving water and cutting infrastructure costs at an open venue.

What the P2 did and the USGA endorsed was a complete reversal to what the golf industry espouses. That is why it is significant.

[JESII]

Again, Don, I'm not saying or hoping conditions will get worse.

I think the risk is that they will and I'm trying to have a conversation around why they will not.

Earlier you made a point (most valuable to me so far on this thread) that the transition to native starts well in from the actual native and center line irrigation facilitates that much better than wall-to-wall. That said, do you think the player should expect progressively dimished turf conditions as they move away from the center of each hole?

I don't have an opinion on whether this is good or bad, but it seems to certainly be a consequence of this renovation.

[Brent Hutto]

Don,

Sorry. I got carried away trying to match the hyperbole of the This Changes Everything camp. I should have said, "If none of the negative possibilities that some of us forsee ever comes to pass then that's what happens."

And for some reason you lot insist on taking me dead wrong. Let me make it as clear as possible...

1) I personally like the way #2 looks today.

2) I personally am confident that the playing conditions at #2 right now would suit my game and my playing preferences perfectly.

3) I personally much prefer this to any other condition I've seen that course in and unlike in the past would seriously consider ponying up the exorbitant green fee to play there. Just because it's so different than most courses and so appealing to my personal preferences.

That said, I also believe the following thing...

4) I think it is going to be very difficult and expensive to keep those scruffy areas from progressing to later stages of how unwatered sandy natural areas tend to evolve in this climate.

5) I think over time the resort will be under enormous pressure to revert to a more conventional visual presentation and playing condition.

6) I do not think even 5% of golfers in the USA share my own personal preferences in visual and playing conditions and a large majority of USA golfers find it worthy of ridicule and disparagement.

Finally

7) I do not think those preferences and opinions will evolve in a more favorable direction with the passage of time. At all.

So no, I hate nothing about it. I just think the cheerleading about how this is the first step in changing the world is ludicrous. What did Earl Woods say when Tiger turned pro? That he'd be bigger than Gandhi and Jesus? I guess the Golf Club Atlas true believers are still a little closer to reality than Tiger's dad but not by much.