Maintenance as an element of design and architect visits after grow-in

[Tommy Williamsen]

When an architect designs a hole, I know that he has a good idea about how he wants it maintained: mow-lines for rough, fringe, around the bunkers, firmness, and even the speed of the greens. I have heard that Nicklaus has some control about how the course is maintained even after construction. I am curious to hear from architects if they go back to courses and discuss maintenance. I know that when I was a member at Four Streams, Steve Smyers came back once a year to discuss maintenance and to make a few tweaks in the design. After a course is played for a while issues about playability and strategy surface. Having the architect show up periodically can only help in maintain the intent of the architect.
On the other hand, knowing that maintenance depends on the whims of ever evolving tastes does it matter?

[Mark_Fine]

Timely you bring this up. I am leaving in 20 min to walk a course (while practicing social distancing) with the GM and super to discuss how I would like to see the course maintained going forward now that most of the renovation work has been completed.  We have done much of this already throughout the project but we will be marking off new mowing lines, talking about bunker edges, turf firmness, native areas,..., etc.  At the end of the day, it is up to the course to maintain the golf course.  The architect can only offer guidance and "strong" suggestions.  I do this all in writing as well. 

[Tommy Williamsen]

Timely you bring this up. I am leaving in 20 min to walk a course (while practicing social distancing) with the GM and super to discuss how I would like to see the course maintained going forward now that most of the renovation work has been completed.  We have done much of this already throughout the project but we will be marking off new mowing lines, talking about bunker edges, turf firmness, native areas,..., etc.  At the end of the day, it is up to the course to maintain the golf course.  The architect can only offer guidance and "strong" suggestions.  I do this all in writing as well. 

I would think that kind of interaction is fun and educational for both sides. I'll bet they come up with some good ideas about maintenance that you hadn't thought of.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
We had a very productive day yesterday.  I learned long ago, the superintendent is a very critical person in any restoration/renovation project.  I have walked away from projects because I felt I would be wasting my time (and the club's money) if the super didn't buy into what we wanted to do and how we wanted things maintained after the work was completed.  On this particular project, it was educational for everyone but there were no real surprises as we walked the course.  We all had a pretty good understanding of what was expected and there was buy-in prior to the project starting.  Yesterday was more of a review of the whole project and in particular painting and flagging new mowing lines and talking about maintenance practices in general.  A written punch/check list was completed as well.
Mark

[Thomas Dai]

Be good to have someone with original deign intent come back and review how 'penalty areas' have evolved since opening.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

Tommy:


Some of my clients ask me to come back regularly; others have not felt the need for us to have a look for 20 years!  [And there are some I haven't seen in that long, because Suffolk VA and Lubbock TX are not on the way to New Zealand or Ireland.]


Last year we reached out to all of our older courses to offer a free day of consulting from one of my associates.  We have found the most pressing problems to be tree growth and changes to mowing lines -- at several courses the greens have shrunk significantly and fairways, too.




I am much less concerned about such changes on our newer courses, because for many of them the current greenkeeper is the one we worked with when building the course.  That's a huge advantage, and it's the main reason we have always tried to help clients find a long-term greenkeeper, instead of a grow-in guy who will head somewhere else after the course opens.  Not that we always got everything perfect to begin with, but if we didn't, the original guy understands our logic so he can find a solution that still works for the playability we intended. 

[Peter Pallotta]

"Last year we reached out to all of our older courses to offer a free day of consulting from one of my associates.  We have found the most pressing problems to be tree growth and changes to mowing lines -- at several courses the greens have shrunk significantly and fairways, too."

This struck me. An aside: Your oldest course would be from about 30 years ago, with I imagine most of the 'older' courses having been built 20-25 years ago. I don't remember reading about many/any of America's Golden Age architects going back after 20-30 years to review & advice re maintenance and mowing lines and tree growth and shrunken greens. But then: how many who were in their heydays in the late teens and early-mid-late 20s were still around and working 30 years later?   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tillie got to go back to some of his courses as the PGA Tour consultant!

[Peter Pallotta]

Tillie got to go back to some of his courses as the PGA Tour consultant!

I didn't realize it was 20+ years after he built them, or that it focused more widely than on bunkers/bunker removals.

[Tom_Doak]

"Last year we reached out to all of our older courses to offer a free day of consulting from one of my associates.  We have found the most pressing problems to be tree growth and changes to mowing lines -- at several courses the greens have shrunk significantly and fairways, too."

This struck me. An aside: Your oldest course would be from about 30 years ago, with I imagine most of the 'older' courses having been built 20-25 years ago. I don't remember reading about many/any of America's Golden Age architects going back after 20-30 years to review & advice re maintenance and mowing lines and tree growth and shrunken greens. But then: how many who were in their heydays in the late teens and early-mid-late 20s were still around and working 30 years later?   

Pete Dye built Crooked Stick in the mid-1960's and tinkered around with it for 50 years after that!




I have been amazed at how quickly things have changed on some of my courses. 


Every time a new greenkeeper takes over, he has a bit of a different eye, and mowing lines inevitably change. 
[If he rebuilds the bunkers, the changes can be far greater.] 
Financial pressures such as we saw in 2001 and 2008 and today cause courses to shrink greens and cut corners on the budget. 
Trees grow more quickly than you'd imagine, because they are getting extra moisture from the irrigation system anytime it's windy.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Tillie got to go back to some of his courses as the PGA Tour consultant!

He also consulted on courses for the PGA that were not played by the tour.

[Peter Pallotta]

just thinking out loud about what today's renovation industry would be like if all of the top 10 golden age greats had been in a position to revisit their dozens of (now) classic courses and make suggestions re trees and green sizes and fairway widths etc etc

[corey miller]

Why does the actual height of the rough never get mentioned?  I know this is a contentious issue for clubs when doing renovation work but why does it seem the restoration guys take a pass on this? 


Or is that a bridge to far in educating members? 

[Tom_Doak]

Why does the actual height of the rough never get mentioned?  I know this is a contentious issue for clubs when doing renovation work but why does it seem the restoration guys take a pass on this? 

Or is that a bridge to far in educating members?

I would answer that question if asked, but I'm rarely asked.  [My answer would nearly always be, "shorter".]  I think most green chairmen think it's their jurisdiction to decide how thick the rough should be.

[Thomas Dai]

One of the advantages of digital camera phones, drones, social media, this GCA site even is that it allows members and enthusiasts to record what a course looks like and thus in some ways those who change it or might be inclined to change it can be held to account and should screw-ups occur there should be enough photos etc in circulation to provide enough information for the screw-ups to be accurately corrected.
Atb

[corey miller]

Tom


All these great clubs spend millions on restorative work, sometimes "restoring" minutia....As part of this they cut trees, redo bunkers, adjust mowing lines, restore lost green size and then a couple million later leave the height of the rough to a green chairman?


Seems to me that punitive rough is more a "menace" than many of the above. 


I guess felling a lot of trees (which seems to be in vogue) can lead to happier and healthier rough so perhaps all can be happy.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom


All these great clubs spend millions on restorative work, sometimes "restoring" minutia....As part of this they cut trees, redo bunkers, adjust mowing lines, restore lost green size and then a couple million later leave the height of the rough to a green chairman?


Seems to me that punitive rough is more a "menace" than many of the above. 

Corey:


I'm not disagreeing with you that it's an important aspect of presenting a golf course.


But I get paid for rebuilding greens and bunkers and sorting out irrigation systems and all of that.  And then, after I leave, they have to mow the grass. 

[Mark_Fine]

As others have stated, mowing lines are one of the biggest changes to golf courses and one of the easiest and least expensive things to fix.  Obviously trees change as well but there is much more emotional attachment to trees then there are to mowing lines. We changed the mowing lines on a course last year (all the fairway lines, approaches and some green expansions) and many of the regular golfers felt it was like we did a complete renovation of the golf course. Discussions about rough were obviously part of that process as well.  I do believe rough should extract some penalty (should be relative to the ability of the golfers who play there) otherwise why have it. I also don’t mind rough being rough.  It has that name for a reason That said, it is up to the course owners to decide how they want to maintain things but it does help to provide guidance. 

[Tom_Doak]

I do believe rough should extract some penalty (should be relative to the ability of the golfers who play there) otherwise why have it.  

The only reason for rough is that it's too expensive to maintain the whole course as fairway -- you've got to stop somewhere. 


That does not mean it was introduced to extract some penalty.


What did all the Golden Age books say about rough?  Not much.  MacKenzie said that at the great schools of golf, like St. Andrews and Hoylake, it was hard to determine the line between fairway and rough.  I don't remember Thomas or Simpson saying anything about it at all.

[Mike Bodo]

As a player here are my thoughts on rough. I expect rough to be somewhat penal as a consequence for missing the fairway. However, it becomes a bit much when the rough is allowed to grow too tall to the point you spend countless minutes looking for balls in it with your playing partners every other hole because not everyone in a foursome hits their tee shot or drive in the fairway together each hole. Short (2 - 3"), thick rough is perfectly acceptable, as usually the top art of the ball is visible if you're in it. Anything much above that for member or daily fee play is excessive.


I'll never forget caddying Oakland Hills (South) weeks leading up the the '85 open and the rough was at least 5 - 6" tall with the grass laying every which way. I dreaded anytime a members ball went in it as I knew it was an exercise in futility more often than not. Of course, as a caddie, every lost ball (save a water ball) was equivalent to an automatic deduction from your tip, so you did everything possible to find it - even if it meant throwing a ball down where you thought it was and telling the member you found it. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Good point about rough.  It is a tricky one because at some courses (especially where there is only one type of grass) rough can be the primary hazard on many of the holes.  Good or bad, rough somewhat defines the strategy or at least helps to dictate/add some strategy without putting in extra bunkers or trees or ... 


I'm not telling you anything you don't know, but on the early links courses there wasn't much maintenance period.  The "fairways" were basically the areas where the sheep, rabbits, etc had eaten the grass away and the "rough" areas were where they left the vegetation alone.  I am not at all a believer in penal lost ball just hack it back in play rough.  But I do think there should be some distinction in the height of the grass from fairway vs "rough".  It was part of the original game.  Otherwise, why not just use gang mowers (where you have one type of grass) and cut everything at one height maybe once or twice a week instead of having any expensive fairway mowers and save a lot of money period 

[Sean_A]

Mark

Entire course animal maintainance is really about the local vegetation and terrain. Sometimes courses are wide open and sometimes not. I don't think there is a definitive conclusion to be drawn about rough 130 years ago. We know with some certainty TOC had far more whins than today and that it took whin clearance for TOC to become what it was. My point is they could stick sheep out there today and within a season or two people would either be praising the width and lack of fairway definition or condemning the look as ill defined and lacking challenge. If the course was filled with whins, sheep will have far less impact.

Of course my ideal would be for people to rip out whins and let sheep do what they do best. Rough should be a hit or miss proposition. Sometimes it's no issue and sometimes it's a big issue. Uniform rough with an arbitrarily assigned penalty simply didn't exist 130 years ago.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The only reason for rough is that it's too expensive to maintain the whole course as fairway -- you've got to stop somewhere. 

Short grass can be effectively hazardous to ... the wider the short grass area the further from the ideal line of play a poorly played shot will roll.
Different lengths of grass do though, unfortunately, look nice in photographs and adverts etc.
Atb

[Tom_Doak]

Different lengths of grass do though, unfortunately, look nice in photographs and adverts etc.

I don't think they do.  For me, that definition contributes to making all the holes look alike -- instead of the undulations defining the holes, the mowing lines do.


Cape Kidnappers and The National (Aus) were more beautiful when the entire property was grazed, but neither client wanted golfers to deal with the animal feces.  At Cape Kidnappers, we thought about mowing a much wider area to imitate that look, but only the sheep could keep the steep banks down into the ravines clipped down tightly -- they're too steep for any kind of golf course equipment.

[Sean_A]

I agree Tom. The more grass lengths there are the more unsightly cut lines there are.  I am starting to become convinced the pinch cut lines short of greens we see so often on midwestern and eastern parkland courses is because people like the cut lines for some reason... even when the architecture is compromised for the look. People also seem to like striped fairways. One would think the fall back position of presenting a course is to avoid highlighting cut lines. When I see a lot of cut I think of gardens rather than golf courses.

Ciao