[Mike Hendren]

yields a slam dunk 7 on anybody's scale in today's world.  I mean, come on, nobody's screwed one up since Oregon's Sandpines.

Given a sandy site doesn't the architect start at third base given: 1) prevailing aesthetic preferences; 2) recent precedents: and 3) younger fanboys driving social media?

In no way am I implying that such designs are light work from the architect's perspective.

Bogey

[Peter Pallotta]

I was thinking just the other day that the Doak Scale needs to be adjusted for inflation.

[Kalen Braley]

While I agree in general Bogey, if memory serves me right, the treehouse hasn't been a big fan of Jim Enghs Awarii Dunes either...

[Kye Goalby]

I think about 99% of the courses in the Palm Springs area are on sand....

[Alex Miller]

Fewer courses are built today and typically one of a handful of firms gets selected to build on these sites. Not saying that's a good or bad thing, it just is.


I think it's undercrediting the architects who are working on these sites to say that they're automatically a 7 on the scale - there's been excellent execution on these sites. With fewer jobs available the best get chosen more often.


Site selection itself has also improved a lot.

[Thomas Dai]

Not all sand is the same.
Are there any particular sorts of sand, say sand that has a particular inherent characteristic, that isn’t golf/grass friendly or isn’t golf/grass friendly unless you spend loads of money in making it more golf/grass friendly?
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Bogey:


I've always felt that in sand you are starting from at least a 6 - some sites are even better than that, but not all that many.  But, I'm still a tough grader. Ran might start them all at 7, as you say.


I do not mean to undersell what has been done on many projects the past 25 years, either.  But one of the big advantages of working in sand is that it's much easier to do finish work and get the detailing done right, compared to working in clay and topsoil, and trying to tie in USGA greens to all of that. 


The simpler we keep the construction methods, the easier it is not to mess up - and, also, the faster and cheaper the course can be built.


P.S.  If you looked at my new course for The National in Australia you would say tge site was at least a 7 - but the previous course built on that site was not a 7.  So a lot does still depend on design.

[Emile Bonfiglio]

I mean, come on, nobody's screwed one up since Oregon's Sandpines.

Maybe the truest words ever written on this site.

[Michael Dugger]

I mean, come on, nobody's screwed one up since Oregon's Sandpines.

Maybe the truest words ever written on this site.

but.....but what about the oblique dunes?  In heaven or hell, depending upon where you think he ends up, Pat Mucci will only be able to play Sandpines.  For infinity.

[PCCraig]

I mean, come on, nobody's screwed one up since Oregon's Sandpines.

**Cough**Cough**Mammoth Dunes**Cough**Cough**

[Ira Fishman]

This is a really interesting thread. It has troubled me for a while that the great architects of the current era have not built as much on clay as the ODGs. That might not be by choice because economically viable and environmentally permissible options on clay are limited. And kudos to Tom Doak for acknowledging the head start on sand. But wouldn't the best architects want to try the challenge of clay?


Ira

[Ally Mcintosh]

There are still a lot of differences in sandy sites though. Sure, they’re way easier to build on but topography, climate, access to water, location and site size / shape still play a huge part.



From a flat, enclosed & protected piece of links land to a desert course in the Middle East, there can be many challenges.


The modern, great courses on sand are all being built on close to perfect sites. That’s why they start as a 6.

[Thomas Dai]

What about black sand sites?
Atb

[Peter Pallotta]

An interesting notion/question, Ira. I used to think it was true, i.e. that the best wanted to be 'tested against' the best. But now I think it's true only for romantic amateurs, not for hard-nosed professionals. An NFL quarterback, an MLB right-handed power bat, an NBA three-point shooter -- they aren't all that interested in 'challenging themselves' against the league's toughest defence, a right hand flame thrower, or man to man coverage. Instead, they'd be perfectly happy (and would much prefer) absolutely demolishing a porous and slow-footed secondary, an aging left hander with an 89 mph fast-ball, and flabby zone coverage. Sure: the greatest golfer of all time enjoyed coming down to the last 3 holes tied and needing to make a couple of birdies to win, but Tiger (and all the other greats) were even happier leading by eight strokes coming into the final round and then winning by 10 or 15 shots at the end. The *results* are what they care most about -- and the more impressive and dominating those results the better. Which is to say: I think today's leading architects would work on clay and take up the challenge of that if they *had to* -- but they are much happier with the challenge of turning a fantastic sandy site into a 9 or 10 instead of merely a 7-8! 

[Ira Fishman]

An interesting notion/question, Ira. I used to think it was true, i.e. that the best wanted to be 'tested against' the best. But now I think it's true only for romantic amateurs, not for hard-nosed professionals. An NFL quarterback, an MLB right-handed power bat, an NBA three-point shooter -- they aren't all that interested in 'challenging themselves' against the league's toughest defence, a right hand flame thrower, or man to man coverage. Instead, they'd be perfectly happy (and would much prefer) absolutely demolishing a porous and slow-footed secondary, an aging left hander with an 89 mph fast-ball, and flabby zone coverage. Sure: the greatest golfer of all time enjoyed coming down to the last 3 holes tied and needing to make a couple of birdies to win, but Tiger (and all the other greats) were even happier leading by eight strokes coming into the final round and then winning by 10 or 15 shots at the end. The *results* are what they care most about -- and the more impressive and dominating those results the better. Which is to say: I think today's leading architects would work on clay and take up the challenge of that if they *had to* -- but they are much happier with the challenge of turning a fantastic sandy site into a 9 or 10 instead of merely a 7-8!

I cannot speak with any knowledge about architects or pro athletes in sports other than the NFL, but having spent a fair amount of time with more than a few top NFL players, I can assure you that they relish the challenge of competing against the best.


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

This is a really interesting thread. It has troubled me for a while that the great architects of the current era have not built as much on clay as the ODGs. That might not be by choice because economically viable and environmentally permissible options on clay are limited. And kudos to Tom Doak for acknowledging the head start on sand. But wouldn't the best architects want to try the challenge of clay?
Ira

Growing up in Chicago and moving to Texas, I sometimes think there are nothing but clay sites to work with, LOL.


It seems to me that the less liked sand courses are one where the architect simply uses his traditional style on a non-traditional site, rather than create a design unique to the site.  That said, no one complains about Royal Melbourne much. 


Overall, I echo the sentiment that every site has some kind of challenge.  Some examples:


-Sand erodes more easily than clay and silt, so use little drainage because of that, or break up long flows with more catch basins to minimize sometimes very deep erosion channels?


- Did you know Prairie Dunes has water table about 2 feet under its lowest areas?  When water can't go down very far, sometimes, its hard to dry out even sandy low areas.  We had that about 40 miles away in Newton, KS, and the underground water pressure was so high we had to stabilize everything with thrust blocks, not just irrigation, but drain pipes, catch basins, etc.

[Lou_Duran]

Not a comment on Mr. Brauer's work, but catch basins, a necessity for flat sites where the architect attempts to create interest and variety by moving dirt around for mounds and hollows while still moving water from the playing areas?  Or a less expensive way to drain the site resulting in very wet low areas and divot fields around the collection points?  Not a good situation IMO, especially during the dormancy months.


As to sand types making a difference, I can think of a course in east Texas built on sand which still has quite a bit of underground drainage (over $1 Million worth, or so I was told), that still holds water in many spots.  Even in the UK, firm and fast in my limited experience seems to be more of an ideal.  Being a short hitter, I am particularly cognizant of how much the ball rolls, and I have found much firmer conditions on hybrid Bermuda greens on a regular basis here in north Texas than anywhere, fairways and greens, elsewhere.

[Joe Hancock]

If the next new sandy-site course I see is yet another rendition of 18 ribbons of turf with sand running the entire length of each hole, I’m giving a 2, just on principle and lack of creativity.


And so that I don’t get beat to the punch, as happens here often, I have some ideas on how to be more creative on a sandy site, but I’m just waiting for the right client......

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not a comment on Mr. Brauer's work, but catch basins, a necessity for flat sites where the architect attempts to create interest and variety by moving dirt around for mounds and hollows while still moving water from the playing areas?  Or a less expensive way to drain the site resulting in very wet low areas and divot fields around the collection points?  Not a good situation IMO, especially during the dormancy months.


As to sand types making a difference, I can think of a course in east Texas built on sand which still has quite a bit of underground drainage (over $1 Million worth, or so I was told), that still holds water in many spots.  Even in the UK, firm and fast in my limited experience seems to be more of an ideal.  Being a short hitter, I am particularly cognizant of how much the ball rolls, and I have found much firmer conditions on hybrid Bermuda greens on a regular basis here in north Texas than anywhere, fairways and greens, elsewhere.

Lou,


As I have said before, as a player, I have probably had to move a ball from a CB area only a few times in 50 years of playing.  Of course, if I played as much as you that number would go up.


I can't envision a CB collecting balls, if built with surrounding grades of less than 5%, which is where a ball can start to roll on its own, maybe less in dormancy.  Of course, I have seen lots of soggy area around catch basins where the architect tried to flatten it out too much.  Nothing worse than getting water close to an inlet, but not all the way to it.  Unless its using too small a catch basin for the area it drains, which golfers always seem to think is a great solution when its dry.  Catch basins carry less water than pipe and those small plastic basins probably back up water for an hour or so in all but the smallest areas.


We encase perforated stand pipes in gravel several feet away, and cap with sand to get water down from right around the CB.  I noticed Gil Hanse specs for the PGA Course he specifies 6 feet of gravel all the way around the catch basin.  Given the typical contractor, I suspect he figures he might get 3 feet out of it, LOL.


But, they can be soggy around it.  However, if not used, the golfer would trudge through long, soggy swales instead.  As a player, you can't really compare what it might have been.  Not sure which is worse.  I do recall the good old days when (and one article in particular) saying you could tell a bad architect by the number of soggy swales you had to walk through.  I guess I took that one to heart.

[Joe Hancock]

Gravel with sand on top....where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, a USGA spec green that is designed to perch water.....so we end up with wet spots around drain basins, even when built to spec, but don’t think about why. Does anyone do the hydraulic tests on the sand/ gravel specified for catch basins, or do we just use the cheapest of their kind and availability?


But, that’s what gets spec’d on most designs because it’s industry standard, and no one wants to diverge from that for the sake of a call-back, or even litigation.


I coined a term for the high percentage of drain basins I’ve seen....the “drainus”, because that’s what it always looks like. There’s a lot more creative ways to make a low spot with a hole in it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,


Up until ten years ago, yes, no one considered the "water release curve" for fw sand capping or even around basins. And I have gotten fooled even recently.  I don't think its the course Lou mentioned, but we built one on mostly east Texas sand, but really had too much silt content, even though it looked sandy.  Like you say, we should have done the tests there.


If you have a better way, I'm sure the industry would love to have you share it......

[Joe Hancock]

Joe,


Up until ten years ago, yes, no one considered the "water release curve" for fw sand capping or even around basins. And I have gotten fooled even recently.  I don't think its the course Lou mentioned, but we built one on mostly east Texas sand, but really had too much silt content, even though it looked sandy.  Like you say, we should have done the tests there.


If you have a better way, I'm sure the industry would love to have you share it......

Thanks, Jeff. I honestly just logged back in, thinking I wanted to delete my rant, as it is a diversion from the actual topic at hand. I shouldn’t have jumped in when it really isn’t “architecture”.


I’ve had great results, with the guidance and technical knowledge of a soils guy/ friend of mine, Brian Mavis out of Ohio. I’ve started to utilize the fine-slit (XGD-like) drain pipe, encased entirely of sand and seen drier conditions around basins. It doesn’t drain so fast that it becomes a problem. FYI, Brian has also specified greens construction for me that utilizes the same fine-slit pipe/ no gravel with a sand/ compost blend as the greens mix, and the supers who’ve allowed me to build that way have wished all their greens were as such. Better results, easier to build, less specs to adhere to, less cost....what’s not to like?


Now, I’ll check out as all this tech talk is probably for another thread.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Seen good results on greens with the XGC, like you say, it's a creative way around catch basins I hadn't thought of.  I'll see who I can convince to try it!

[Lou_Duran]

I suspect, Jeff, that I probably have played more rounds in 2019 than you have in total since you redesigned GSW back in the 1990s!


Come out to Gentle Creek some time and I will show you divot fields on most holes, both in fairways and around greens (I hazard to guess how many CBs we have, but likely over 100).  5% grade? Hah, some look like retaining walls!  The members generally believe that the course drains well, I think because they let carts out earlier than most places.


As to the course in east Texas I was referring to, it is Pine Dunes, an outstanding design that suffers, IMO, from its remote location and area demographics.  I am always careful to note area rainfall and conditions of other courses (your new one out there, for example, was firmer) played around that time.


I do wonder whether the perforated pipe can become plugged rather easily by soil, sand, silt, etc., and how hard it is to keep open to do its work.  We have a CB and a bunker at GC which seem to hold water regularly despite the drainage being dug up and pipes snaked- perhaps there is not enough slope to the creek they feed into? We have seen tree roots poking out of pipes at the outlet, which is another problem all together.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,


Perf pipe can be clogged.  First, it needs at least 1.5% slope, but very few in the biz are aware of slope needed for "self cleansing flow velocity" and it causes problems.


As to French drains and the like, my standard line is to take care of surface drainage problems with surface drains, and subsurface drainage problems with sub surface drainage, i.e., gravel filled trenches and pipes.  I have seen them reduce in effectiveness over a few years if you try to catch surface water through the gravel.  Thatch, silt, you name it seems to clog up the porous medium.


Everything needs maintenance to stay effective, probably including that gravel pocket around the catch basins or whatever else is used.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()