I don't see any passive-aggressive discussion, just honest disagreement.
I was under the impression that single row decision was specifically part of the renovation. Meaning, the resort is trying to capture (and perhaps more importantly) and retain a certain fairway width leading to sandy areas as was the case those many moons ago. It makes perfect sense to use single row if one goal of the renovation is to keep the width static. Removing the decision making from future supers is very wise imo because eventually reasons for doing stuff is forgotten and a new cycle of off message maintenance begins again. That may make Pinehurst quite unique in the single row debate. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach exist, but if there is an over-riding concept at work here, why would folks not think single row is a good idea?
I have no idea if it will be a success or not, that will depend on the consumers. However, I have no doubt the resort can control the vegetation in the sandy areas, its a question money. I do think controlling that growth is far more important than worrying about the edges of the fairways being a different colour to the centres of the fairways. I am astonished that people even brought this up. I saw it on tv and took no notice because I thought the transition zones being browned to flow into the waste areas was done on purpose - and imo rightfully so. How can a super create a natural looking course with a stark transition line between fairway and non-fairway? This is one of the biggest issues I have with desert courses, the dividing line is far too obvious and it looks too much like a garden rather than a golf course. Jeepers, even in good gardens there will be areas where the garden spills over into the lawn or path - why do you that is the case - just poor gardening?
I also don't believe supers can (or will?) control the throw of water as well some suggest and I don't think it is reasonable to suggest that this possible. Of course, if larger areas are covered than where water is desired, water will eventually be applied to those areas either by carelessness, a poorly functioning system or supers thinking its a good idea. Its incredible to me that some would say this won't or can't happen. I can't tell you how many times I have seen rough watered when it wasn't necessary.
Ciao
Sean, as usual, has cut to the chase of this discussion. I hate to keep referring back to something I wrote, but I'd like to highlight again one line Bob Farren said in the piece I quoted earlier: "We want the grassing lines to be defined by the irrigation throw".
In other words, this whole process was very carefully thought through. Tom D has talked a lot on here about how he and his crew work hard to blur the lines between fairway, green and rough, and how he hates straight lines. This is exactly the same: by ensuring that, as you get further from the centreline, the turf will get less water, you ensure a progressive transition from maintained turf to native, not a sharp line (which is what you would get if you had a row of part circle heads down the outside of your intended fairway).
To me this is what is most radical of all about the Pinehurst project. Everyone in the industry talks the talk when it comes to water reduction etc, but very few embrace this concept of blurred lines - for the overwhelming majority, 'definition' is a great thing and to be sought after, and if anyone points out that straight lines are unnatural and jarring, you end up with the curving fairway cut so many courses use, not an improvement imo.
It is true that this blurring of the edge does potentially have a negative impact on strategy when the design of a hole calls for the ideal tee shot to be placed close to one edge, but only if the _playing_ quality (as opposed to the aesthetic quality) of the turf is worse as a result, and I haven't heard too many voices suggesting that was so at Pinehurst.
Of course, whether or not this approach is a good idea is, in the end, a value judgement, and thus anyone can legitimately disagree. What I think is not debatable is that the restoration project achieved the goals it set out to achieve. None of this happened by accident.