Green's irrigation.

[Don Mahaffey]

It has been stated by many in the know that Pinehurst #2 made a mistake with their irrigation changes. I strongly disagree with that premise, but many contributors here have stated that turf conditions will decline over time. Again, I think they have zero basis for such an assumption.
At Pinehurst, they have ins/outs around the greens which mean they can irrigate the greens and surrounds independently.  This has become common.  Should all courses have this feature? Do all great courses have this feature?

[BCowan]

Don,

    Can we discuss turf prior to single irrigation lines?  How about that period of time?  Courses survived right? 

[Don Mahaffey]

Sorry, don't understand the question, rephrase?

[Aaron McMaster]

It has been stated by many in the know that Pinehurst #2 made a mistake with their irrigation changes. I strongly disagree with that premise, but many contributors here have stated that turf conditions will decline over time. Again, I think they have zero basis for such an assumption.
At Pinehurst, they have ins/outs around the greens which mean they can irrigate the greens and surrounds independently.  This has become common.  Should all courses have this feature? Do all great courses have this feature?

Don, I don't want to speak for others here about number #2's irrigation but I'll tell you what I think about it.  I think it's a waste of money to remove heads for no other reason than thinking the super willl use it if it's there.  If your being budget conscious why do this, just turn them off.  

They do a minor amount of cart rounds on #2 so this whole philosophy can work because of that.  I don't care what climate, turf, etc no irrigation combined with high traffic kills grass period.  The only way to combat it is healthy turf or walk.  If you put 100 cart rounds thru #2 with that irrigation system you will beat bermuda to the dirt, it's going dormant from lack of water so it's no different than say streamsong in winter and why they don't let carts out there when the bermuda is dormant.

I would say a lot of course have greens heads and perimeter heads and certainly all the high end places do.  We have part cirlces that water in for greens and parts out for surrounds so no water touches the bunkers unless we want to water the bunkers.  Is this high maintenance, absolutely and personally I think bunkers have become so out of hand it's ridiculous but that's the golfer expectation at the moment.  I'd rather have that conversation about pinehurst than worrying about the irrigation system.

[Greg Chambers]

Don,

I ran full heads only (had the parts throwing out option but never used it) for ten years on California greens with tight clay in the surrounds.  Never had any issues with the greens...the surrounds were good, too.  I would do it again.....I'm not a fan of the back to backs.

[BCowan]

When Pinehurst first opened it has oil/sand based greens right?  I thought there wasn't underground irrigation at that time Pinehurst opened?  That is why i can't believe people are worried about losing fairway due to lack of coverage with single row.  

[Aaron McMaster]

Don,

    Can we discuss turf prior to single irrigation lines?  How about that period of time?  Courses survived right? 

It wasn't very good.....we used to get around in horse and buggies but were not gonna go back to that either.  IMO what will happen is turf breeders will give us grasses in the future that require minimal water or even terribly salty water to survive and will still stay relatively green.  

Patience, you can't change 50 years of golf maintenance overnight and your sure not gonna do it thinking there was a fonder day, my grandfather used to say that crap too as he was old and losing it.

[BCowan]

Don,

    Can we discuss turf prior to single irrigation lines?  How about that period of time?  Courses survived right? 

It wasn't very good.....we used to get around in horse and buggies but were not gonna go back to that either.  IMO what will happen is turf breeders will give us grasses in the future that require minimal water or even terribly salty water to survive and will still stay relatively green.  

Patience, you can't change 50 years of golf maintenance overnight and your sure not gonna do it thinking there was a fonder day, my grandfather used to say that crap too as he was old and losing it.

I think a round together at thee Goat Hill is in order for next summer.   

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I would like to reserve judgement until I know what it plays/looks like for everyday guest play.  You take a brand new irrigation system on brand new fairways and lean it out to US Open conditions, it's going to look a little odd.  Even if P2 went with a more conventional multi-row system, I would still advocate for cutting the perimeter throws short of the edges, leading to edge browning anyway.  Overspray in that climate with the goals that they have for the native areas would be a disaster.  

[Aaron McMaster]

Don,

    Can we discuss turf prior to single irrigation lines?  How about that period of time?  Courses survived right? 

It wasn't very good.....we used to get around in horse and buggies but were not gonna go back to that either.  IMO what will happen is turf breeders will give us grasses in the future that require minimal water or even terribly salty water to survive and will still stay relatively green.  

Patience, you can't change 50 years of golf maintenance overnight and your sure not gonna do it thinking there was a fonder day, my grandfather used to say that crap too as he was old and losing it.

I think a round together at thee Goat Hill is in order for next summer.   

There are always exceptions to rules.  However, if you think thee goat hill is going to become the golfing norm I beg to differ.  I can't stand group think and it's one of the reasons golf is cool with it's many variations and different designs.  It's no different than peoples games, everyone has a different style of how to get it in the cup, it's not one size fits all.  Beauty is in the eye of beholder.

[Greg Chambers]

I was under the impression the OP was regarding greens irrigation...the single row has been discussed ad nauseam...

[Joe Hancock]

Don,

I would bet that any great course with any kind of name recognition/ marketability is outfitted with ins/ outs on greens. Heck, I see installations now that have ins/ outs/ approaches....yes, that means three heads installed right next to each other. I despise it for playability(too many things in poking out of the ground) and for maintenance(pull some debris in at the pump and you've given someone a lot of work). It also is too much, IMO, for anyone to really dial in on that specific of a basis for overlap reasons. The thing that baffles me most is that we're even talking about sprinkler heads. Show me a course w/ a 2 million dollar system and I'll show you a maintenance staff that has 5 guys dragging hoses. It happens almost everywhere. 

Honestly, every superintendent loves a good, soaking rain. It doesn't rain different on greens than it does on surrounds and no one complains. But, I'll say it again, no one gets paid more for doing less, so we over-complicate things to establish our position.

Joe

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

I would bet those part to parts out in the approach cause some problems.  I have seen the extra water in the approach from the small stop at the reverse point of the half circles putting more water down in the approach.  If they are there, they should be adjusted away from a pure 90 deg. stopping point.

The back to backs have become standard, however, and try to convince almost any super or irrigation designer to remove them.  I doubt they will.

I understand the theory and have no real problem with it.  As noted, with square or triangular spacing, and roundish green shapes, there are still small areas that will require hand watering or overwatering.

As to P2 specifically, I wonder what all those famous Ross chipping areas would look like and play like without irrigation?  Yes, I know they went years without it, but the greens weren't always domed up and running at 10, either.  For resort players, scruffy lie chips to those faster greens seems like it would be brutal.

[Don Mahaffey]

Don,
 But, I'll say it again, no one gets paid more for doing less, so we over-complicate things to establish our position.

Joe

Then sell it as gospel to validate our position. And soon even those not involved directly in the business can tell you what is right and wrong because they've read and listened to those explaining the proper way to do things....

Except I can name more than a handful of highly ranked modern courses that DO NOT have ins/outs. What's up with that approach? They knew the "right" way to do things and yet made decisions based on local conditions like climate, soil type, grass type, and then put in less then the norm. These are all great courses that people here often rave about...hmmm....maybe better to just talk about the golf and not the sprinkler heads.

Regarding the rest of your post, yeah, I've seen those three head configs, often times with a QC set in there too...just in case...or so you can just drag hose and not use any of the three at all. I often wonder why some courses demand all the best, then revert to hand watering everything and never using the overheads. I have no issue with the hand watering as I can show you soil moisture data that shows how hard it is to get even soil moisture even with the most advanced systems.

The most recent advancement has been ins/outs trimming fairways. Yup, forever solidifying the fwy edge and assuring a nice looking fwy/rough line that will forever be in place. Many courses already have this and many more are putting it in...in the Northeast and far north.

Makes me wonder why really smart guys who have built some of the world's greatest golf courses would consider putting in less irrigation? Did they suddenly lose their facilities? Or have they learned enough in their careers to know there is a time and a place for something different? I don't think anyone at PH, or anyone at the top ranked courses without ins/outs is making a statement. I just think they are doing what is right for their particular situation.

[Aaron McMaster]

I just think they are doing what is right for their particular situation.

Good stuff there Don.

[JESII]

Aahh...beautiful...passive-aggression exemplified.

Wonder if Ben will show up to comment...

[Don Mahaffey]

I just think they are doing what is right for their particular situation.

Good stuff there Don.

That has been my point from the beginning.

[Don Mahaffey]

Aahh...beautiful...passive-aggression exemplified.

Wonder if Ben will show up to comment...

Now don't go wreaking my thread. 

Do you think courses that don't use ins/outs will eventually need to add heads or make changes? Do you know any good courses that don't use ins/outs?

[JESII]

I'm not privy to the irrigation set ups at any courses.


What are the pros and cons of ins/outs?

[Brent Hutto]

I'll ask a much more basic question. Does the term "in/out" refer to pairs of sprinkler heads, one facing the green and one away from the green? As opposed to just one circular head?

[Don Mahaffey]

I'll ask a much more basic question. Does the term "in/out" refer to pairs of sprinkler heads, one facing the green and one away from the green? As opposed to just one circular head?

yes, two heads with one spraying the green, one spraying away from the green, or as Joe noted, sometimes at the front corners of the greens, there are three, one spraying the green, one spraying the rough, and one spraying the approach.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent, yes that's it.  The theory is that the bent greens and the longer outer grasses both have vastly different water requirements (with the green often being less, believe it or not) so you need to ability to water each differently.  Not sure if I have seen a course where the fw chip areas had separate heads from the rough surrounds, but I am sure that is coming somewhere.....

Approach heads have often been wired up separately from the other fw heads, as these high use areas often have even another water requirement.

Only Colbert Hills among my courses has fw in and outs.  Touted as a responsible course, they wanted to make sure they could water the Zoysia fw differently than the fescue/blue roughs as required.

As I said on another thread, I still think you need double row to ensure reasonable coverage of the fw.  Having been a night water guy for a summer, and seeing a lot of courses overwatering some areas to get some water to other areas, I think the overlap concept is a pretty good way to go for critical turf areas.

[JMEvensky]

Does it ever become cost effective to just hand water greens/surrounds or is that always a luxury?

[Ben Sims]

Bottom line is that heads cost money. And I've not stumbled onto anything that has definitively proven that more heads = less water. If evenly irrigating turf using outdated measurements is the goal, then in/out's have a place. Like I've said to you before Don, in many cases (due mostly to cost and water availability) golf courses will be forced into a new paradigm. It's a bit weird to say it this way but you have a choice to make. You can irrigate your turf, or you can turf your irrigation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

I did some informal research, and while the theory is more heads = less water, in a small sample size, less heads = less water.  No real way for me to tell, but I suspect more heads = more even water, but maybe also a bit more.

Biggest problem remains, as suggested, a mental mindset to turn them off, run them shorter, or go back to watering every other or third day, which can be done in most turfs and most climates.  (or many, depending on your semantic take)