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.
I am all for the progression and blurring of the edges, and avoiding the straight lines. But I do believe you should be able to do this without the super green artificial line in the middle, by adding more heads. They can be smaller heads, and they dont need to be a full wall to wall system.
I would add as well that some of the native areas at P2 do have a pretty concrete line where fairway stops and native starts, so I can't see how irrigation would make that worse.
Grant Saunders gives a good explanation about the shortfalls of center line only above on this thread.
It would be interesting to hear from superintendents that are managing courses with a more comprehensive irrigation system, while maintaining firm conditions, low use of water, and are managing to blur the edges, producing great playability and a natural look.
I promise photos of one example where this is going to be tried, sadly not until January 2016, as the fescues need water for grow in during the next Southern Hemisphere summer.
It would be great to hear from C&C, and other involved at Pinehurst if the single line irrigation was something that was debated internally with several pros and cons thrown out, or if it was never in doubt on how to proceed.
Again, Pinehurst is as fine a course as I have seen, and I congratulate ownership, C&C, superintendent and crew for what was done with the course. I believe they have set one of the best examples for others to follow and I just hope to learn from their experience.
There is an interview where Ben and Bill talk about the single row and how they came to the idea based on some old aerials where they could see the mainline down the center of each hole and they use that as a guide. I don't know if that is what you are looking for but I found it to be a fascinating interview.
My understanding of Pinehurst #2 irrigation, and I'm hearing this from a friend of a friend, is they do have single head control.
Think of it like this as I sense you'll understand my point, we have never in history had better materials to work with, better control systems, and many would argue better heads. (some old timers loved the old impacts, and I liked them too) But, we still feel like every head on a course must be spaced exactly the same distance and all have the same nozzles regardless of topography, prevailing wind, or hole shape. We know that field changes are made and heads nozzled up/down, arcs adjusted, and angle of throw changed.
With software available, or using simple catch cans, or even better yet, measuring and recording soil moisture, we can put in larger nozzles where we need more distance, smaller ones where we don't and we can do the run time calcs to run proper cycle times. My point, this idea that this is your grandad's single row system is nuts. C & C are not stupid and I don't think the people that care for P2 are either. they have computers, irrigation consultants, soil moisture measuring equipment, and everything else they need to apply the water exactly as they'd like.
We need to look at this differently.