The next trend in maintenance may be

[Patrick_Mucci]

doing away with buffers of rough and bringing the fairways right into the fairway bunkers.

I saw this done at a 1929 Donald Ross course not long ago, and it greatly enhanced the playing experience, despite cries to the contrary at the outset.

Now, more courses are considering it and more courses are doing it, including some in South Florida.

Why shouldn't this be a universal ?

[Ryan Taylor]

I favor this trend as well. I wonder if it increases the likelihood of a bunker washout during a heavy rainfall event?? Also, does it add a noticeable amount of extra labor cost (time) to maintain look? Can a superintendent impart some knowledge on the subject?

[Jim_Kennedy]

It seems to me that unless all the bunkers were simple circles with no lacy edges you'd have to walk mow a few passes around them to accommodate the turning circle of a fairway mower, and you'd probably have to do that every, or every other, time that the fairway was mowed.
Even if they were just simple shapes you might still have to walk mow the edge, and even if you only did it on the  fairway side.

Labor=$$$ ?

[john_stiles]

One thing holding this back might be increased maintenance costs with larger fairway acreage to mow and maintain.

Another is some courses have different grasses in rough versus fairway.

If money is not an issue,  it seems like a worthy idea.

[Bradley Anderson]

I started this last year with the 1" intermediate cut. I feel it accomplishes the same goal as doing it with 1/2" fairway cut if you keep it dry and firm and it is much more manageable on a moderate budget. If you bring the fairway cut right into the bunker you need to consider hand mowing which is fine if you have the budget to do it.

[Joe Hancock]

I started this last year with the 1" intermediate cut. I feel it accomplishes the same goal as doing it with 1/2" fairway cut if you keep it dry and firm and it is much more manageable on a moderate budget. If you bring the fairway cut right into the bunker you need to consider hand mowing which is fine if you have the budget to do it.

No more calls, we have a winner!

Joe

[Mark McKeever]

If money is not an issue,  it seems like a worthy idea.

Nailed it, doing this is expensive and labor intensive. 

It all boils down to $$$

[BCowan]

Besides maint. it makes the course a little harder for the average golfer

[Greg Chambers]

Welcome to 2008, glad you could join us...

[Anthony_Nysse]

doing away with buffers of rough and bringing the fairways right into the fairway bunkers.

I saw this done at a 1929 Donald Ross course not long ago, and it greatly enhanced the playing experience, despite cries to the contrary at the outset.

Now, more courses are considering it and more courses are doing it, including some in South Florida.

Why shouldn't this be a universal ?

It won't become universal. Like others have said, it all boils down to money and if its even a desire of the club to do so, It's much more than just changing mowing patterns. Grasses must be replaced, too...

[Dan Herrmann]

Isn't there also an issue with sand that has escaped the bunker dulling the mower blades?

[Jerry Kluger]

Pat: I have been told that a course in NJ did this a couple of years back and the members couldn't figure out why they were playing more often out of the bunkers.  I have seen the opposite occur where courses have deeper rough around the bunkers - the reason is cost as they just don't have enough staff to cut the rough around the bunkers.

What I have been told recently is that there is revised method in bunker maintenance where only the bottom of the bunkers are raked while the slopes are either left alone or pushed down to make the surface firmer.  The reason is to stop balls from plugging into the bunker faces.

[Steven_Biehl]

We maintain a fairway edge that runs into the bunkers and, for what it is worth, I don't believe it adds too much additional cost.  The edges are mown with a riding mower.  We have modified a few mowing lines to make it easier to maintain with a riding mower.  The dense growth habit of the bentgrass keeps a clean edge better than the bluegrass edge.  The nature of our bunker construction (moderately steep faces) results in the bluegrass face being much more maintenance than the fairway edge of the bunker.  I love the look and playability of the design element, and wouldn't put much weight on cost of maintenance if a course was making a decision to do this.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
A new trend for some maybe but not for me.  I have been advocating changing mowing lines and doing this on most all the courses I work with/consult with for years.  Fairway bunkers are called “fairway” bunkers because they were meant to be part of the fairway and not meant to be languishing alone out in the rough.  I call those bunkers surrounded by rough “rough” bunkers.  Balls destined for the sand end up getting hung up in the rough.  This lowers the hazard value of the bunker and defeats part of the purpose of its existence.  Ideally, mowing lines should run right up and into the front/fairway sides of the bunkers whenever possible.  And yes many times the grass needs to be changed e.g. blue/rye grass surrounding a bunker that is next to a bent grass fairway but the look is ten times better as is the strategic importance of the hazard.  

I remember the look of all the “fairway" bunkers at Pinehurst #2 prior to the restoration during the 2005 U.S. Open.  It was awful as they were all lost in the rough miles from the fairways.  The only value they added was to further penalize an already poor shot.  

C&C and Doak courses almost always have their fairways running right up and into their fairway bunkers as well as many of the greenside bunkers in the approaches.  It looks and plays great!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't there also an issue with sand that has escaped the bunker dulling the mower blades?

NO

[Patrick_Mucci]

If money is not an issue,  it seems like a worthy idea.

Nailed it, doing this is expensive and labor intensive. 

It all boils down to $$$

Mark & John,

It's not expensive and it's not substantively more labor intensive than maintaining the border of rough between the fairway and the bunker.

I don't believe that there's an substantive increase in cost.

Remember, it costs money to maintain that buffer of rough between the fairway and the bunker, and the incremental cost to maintain that area without rough isn't substantive.

So many fairway bunkers now reside within a sea of rough, effectively muting their intended function.

You have to ask, are those bunkers intended to be window dressing, or perform their intended functions ?

[BCowan]

You have to ask, are those bunkers intended to be window dressing, or perform their intended functions ?

  I have to ask the same question, Is crushed rock at $90 a sqft a window dressing?  Aren't bunkers suppose to be sand/dirt at $3 a sqft performing their intended functions? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

You have to ask, are those bunkers intended to be window dressing, or perform their intended functions ?

I have to ask the same question, Is crushed rock at $90 a sqft a window dressing?
 
Aren't bunkers suppose to be sand/dirt at $3 a sqft performing their intended functions?  

What clubs use crushed rock at $ 90/sqft in their bunkers ?

The answer to your question depends upon the location of the bunker and it's probability of interfacing with the golfer.

[BCowan]

Aren't bunkers suppose to be sand/dirt at $3 a sqft performing their intended functions? 

Yes, we are in agreement.  bunkers are suppose to be hazards and be avoided.

[Joe Hancock]

I am trying to be less whiny and not so prone to negativity, so pardon me if I struggle with phrasing here....

There are a bunch of superintendents that actively participate on this board who can answer all the financial questions posed, so there should be no need to speculate by those who don't do that kind of thing regularly. For instance, yes, some bunker sands cost $90 per ton, but nowhere is one ton of sand required per square foot of bunker. These trivial things matter a lot to the folks who read our posts but aren't participants of this board. And, we can know specifically whether it is, or isn't more expensive to mow around the bunkers at fairway height vs. some other height...if we wait for some superintendents to weigh in.

I think everyone agrees that a bunker buffered by thick grass isn't a good presentation. Here's a hypothetical; would any clubs who are infatuated with the "semi-rough" aka "intermediate cut" be willing to give up that feature so the superintendent could put those resources into proper bunker presentation?

Joe

[Ian Mackenzie]

Pat,

I'm seeing this more and more. In fact, we did it at our club in 2013. (Fairway bunkers first, then green-side.)

I believe many of the courses that RGD restored over the past 10-15 years have done this. Then, just like Julian Robertson and his "Tiger Cubs", Tom Doak's field lieutenants - Gil Hanse, Jim Urbina, Bruce Hepner - have all gone solo and followed similar methods.

It goes hand-in-hand with "fast and firm" and closer integration of bunkers with green's surrounds. Makes players really think about shot placement off tees knowing that balls can run into bunkers.

We have read in archives how golden era architects mandated that fairways roll right into bunkers. But it is more commonly said as follows:

Fairway: Will expand fairways out to the leading edge of the bunkers as depicted in the
1938 aerial. The cross bunker located in the middle of the fairway will have fairway
running up to the edge of the bunker, No bunkers will have a mowed rough line in
between the fairway and bunker. This will allow for a ball that is not well struck by a
player to enter the hazard, This will allow the bunkers at XXXXX to become a more
important role as part of the overall strategy.

Then William Flynn adds:

“… The principal consideration of the architect is to design his course in such a
way as to hold the interest of the player from the first tee to the last green and to
present the problems of the various holes in such a way that they register in the
player’s mind as he stands on the tee or on the fairway for the shot to the green.”

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I really think that modern day irrigation practices, driven by golfer expectations, needs to be a part of the discussion. The current trend is to make sure every inch of the property is irrigated, green and plush. Leaner conditions would negate much of this discussion.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

30+ years ago, I noticed the intevening "buffer of rough" becoming more prevalent with bunkers and water hazards.

I believe that it's introduction had nothing to do with maintenance and everything to do with the rise of that ugly demon, "fairness"

I watched green committees expand from a few interested members to 10+ % of the membership.
I observed members lobbying for their self interests, take hold.
Rarely did green committee members view the game, golf course and maintenance in any light than their own perceived needs.  

Hence, I use the term "safety net", because that's what I observed.

On two holes in particular, one with a creek fronting the green, and on another with the creek bisecting the DZ, member after member claimed that the hazards weren't fair, that they hit great shots only to end up being penalized by the creek.

What they really meant was that they chose the wrong club, struck it exceptionally well, and ended up being penalized for a well struck shot.  They hadn't a clue that their poor choice of clubs was really the culprit.

I saw buffers of rough introduced, and then expanded from three feet to ten yards.

With the bunkers, the buffers of rough often extended one to two or more yards from the bunker.

Again, the complaint was that a well struck shot shouldn't end up in a bunker.
They completely ignored or were ignorant to the fact that they hit the wrong club and/or in the wrong direction.

Those crutches/aids, which golfers want, to avoid the consequences of poor judgement and/or poor execution should be removed.

And, I've begun noticing this trend and applaud it.

As to cost, should the game, the architecture, the field of play be perverted in the name of cost and fairness, or do you seek a form of purity in the architectural features, one where the features shouldn't be diminished because a golfer fails to think and/or execute ?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I really think that modern day irrigation practices, driven by golfer expectations, needs to be a part of the discussion.


Joe,

I agree completely.

But, don't forget, many of these intervening buffers of rough were introduced long after the irrigation system was designed and introduced.
Hence, removing those buffers, on those courses, shouldn't be an issue.

The current trend is to make sure every inch of the property is irrigated, green and plush.

"Green" is a separate but related issue.

Leaner conditions would negate much of this discussion.

Agreed, and I'm starting to see some movement in that direction.

Seminole might be a great example.

"Plush and green" isn't the maintenance goal at Seminole, ideal playing surfaces/conditions are.
And, playing a golf course that's striving for ideal playing conditions, is a rewarding experience.

IF, and it's a big IF, PGA Tour courses were less green, less plush, with that nice brown/yellow/green tinge, within a year, you'd see local courses following suit.

But, TV is about entertainment and contrast, ergo, don't hold your breath for PGA Tour events.
But, we can applaud the efforts of the USGA.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Pat,

I really think that modern day irrigation practices, driven by golfer expectations, needs to be a part of the discussion.


Joe,

I agree completely.

But, don't forget, many of these intervening buffers of rough were introduced long after the irrigation system was designed and introduced.
Hence, removing those buffers, on those courses, shouldn't be an issue.

The current trend is to make sure every inch of the property is irrigated, green and plush.

"Green" is a separate but related issue.

Leaner conditions would negate much of this discussion.

Agreed, and I'm starting to see some movement in that direction.

Seminole might be a great example.

"Plush and green" isn't the maintenance goal at Seminole, ideal playing surfaces/conditions are.
And, playing a golf course that's striving for ideal playing conditions, is a rewarding experience.

IF, and it's a big IF, PGA Tour courses were less green, less plush, with that nice brown/yellow/green tinge, within a year, you'd see local courses following suit.

But, TV is about entertainment and contrast, ergo, don't hold your breath for PGA Tour events.
But, we can applaud the efforts of the USGA.

Applaud the USGA all you'd like, it did NOTHING to attract anyone new to the game of golf. It also didn't do anything to keep those that were debating on hanging up the sticks. There was a very in depth Twitter conversation about this 2 weeks ago. Many on this site enjoy the "down with brown," look, but most do not. If the USGA was really behind the movement, why didn't all their championships look like that? We have many, many years before brown is considered "pretty" or even acceptable. People like green. Id venture to say the majority of golfers would give up a few yards to have green lush turf, at least in America.