[corey miller]

I am being told that a few classic era courses are in the midst of irrigation projects that include enough heads to irrigate the rough to make it more "plush and consistent".  In my area, I reflexively think of Bethpage and Winged Foot both of which have been restored and both of which have fairways that are too narrow and rough that is too high and penal that has horrible implications for play and strategy. Do they both irrigate the rough or just let nature work? When did they both add the heads to irrigate the rough? 


Are Modern courses being built with such over the top (to say nothing of environmentally wasteful) irrigation systems? 


And what did the rough that existed on the classic era courses (we can stick to Parkland for purposes of this inquiry) look like and how did it play? 


Folks on GCA laud the great "restorations" that have been pulled off since the advent of this site but is it truly a "restoration" when many of the best  have velcro rough where advancing the ball with an 8-Iron is problematic?   


Or should we continue to leave this up to Greens Committee's that have not a clue and I am told were responsible for the original defacements to all the classics in the modern era? 

[Anthony_Nysse]

I am being told that a few classic era courses are in the midst of irrigation projects that include enough heads to irrigate the rough to make it more "plush and consistent".  In my area, I reflexively think of Bethpage and Winged Foot both of which have been restored and both of which have fairways that are too narrow and rough that is too high and penal that has horrible implications for play and strategy. Do they both irrigate the rough or just let nature work? When did they both add the heads to irrigate the rough? 


Are Modern courses being built with such over the top (to say nothing of environmentally wasteful) irrigation systems? 


And what did the rough that existed on the classic era courses (we can stick to Parkland for purposes of this inquiry) look like and how did it play? 


Folks on GCA laud the great "restorations" that have been pulled off since the advent of this site but is it truly a "restoration" when many of the best  have velcro rough where advancing the ball with an 8-Iron is problematic?   


Or should we continue to leave this up to Greens Committee's that have not a clue and I am told were responsible for the original defacements to all the classics in the modern era?

I dont want to get too deep into this conversation, as I am a Superintendent, but with the expectation for faster, firm fairways, more consistent roughs & in many cases, these grasses are different, have different requirements, its an option that makes a lot of sense for the clubs that desire that look.

[Marty Bonnar]

It’s not plush, it’s lush.
I think.
F.

[Tom_Doak]

Corey:


Those bigger, "better" irrigation systems are sold on the premise that having separate control over watering the rough vs. the fairway allows the superintendent to water each according to its needs, and, if necessary, turn off the water to the roughs in the event of drought restrictions.  So, their designers say, they will use LESS water than the previous system.


I think we are both suspicious if that is the real result.  Does a club that just spent $2.5m on an irrigation system want the superintendent to let it go brown?  Probably not, in my experience.  For every course that uses less water with its new system, I'd bet there are five that use MORE water, because they can.


[Sadly, this is generally true about conservation.  All too often, the "savings" from attempts at conserving water or energy are not saved, but spent on extending the area watered, or the number of electrical devices used.]


This happens often because the superintendent is told he should have only the best, and the board is sold on sparing no expense to secure the long term needs of the course.  Of course, this is a far easier sale when they are mostly spending Other People's Money.

[Mike Nuzzo]

To get a little in the weeds, Tom's ball park expense of $2.5 million is way low if there are ins and outs along the fairway / rough interface - similar to green ins and outs. It seems like it may be 1,000 extra heads - which is over $1MM.
The head-to-head spacing winds up tighter too.
 

[Joe Hancock]

If a designer proposes having in’s and out’s for fairways and rough, they better be darn sure where that line in the grass is supposed to be. They’ll also recommend HDPE (wisely) which means those fwy/ rough lines are determined for the next 30-40 years.


I’d likely get fired shortly after I switch the fwy side of the heads to full circle, while shutting the rough heads completely off……

[Sean_A]

It’s not plush, it’s lush.
I think.
F.

Plush or lush, rough shouldn't be either. It should be dry and inconsistent.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Where once there was rough there is now long smooth (unfortunately).
atb

[Kyle Harris]

Consistent rough is just another term for fairway. Equal results for equal shots is the definition of fair.

Fairway can be mowed at any height. In this case it's likely 3+ inches. 

[Anthony_Nysse]

If a designer proposes having in’s and out’s for fairways and rough, they better be darn sure where that line in the grass is supposed to be. They’ll also recommend HDPE (wisely) which means those fwy/ rough lines are determined for the next 30-40 years.


I’d likely get fired shortly after I switch the fwy side of the heads to full circle, while shutting the rough heads completely off……

Joe,
  I feel like I shouldn't have to be the one to mention this or you're playing dumb for conversation purposes. Changing irrigation heads/lines to accommodate adjusted fairway lines is not than that difficult with today's knowledge & contractors abilities. Adding& subtracting pipe is pretty common in the scope of a renovation. There are 100 more difficult things during a renovation.
 
  Also, I cant say that an irrigation designer is one that is proposing the layout of heads. This is usually driven by a Supt/Boards/Committees desires & wants. Driplines, bunker misters, irrigation heads that water rough only, irrigation heads that water fairways only, water tees only....that's directed from above, not the designer.




  And yes, you're taking systems that cost north of $3m+, easy. Especially if you're adding a pump station.  Irrigation heads, installed are over $250 a head. They all basically have their own computer module in them, now.

[archie_struthers]

 




Aarghhh !

[corey miller]

I appreciate the information.


In my area the new irrigation system push seem to be going hand in hand with "restoration" work.  I can understand the need for some heads to be added  but am a little miffed on why a club would spend millions on a "restoration" that improves the look and playability (and oftentimes fun factor) of a classic course while also making the rough more punitive.  Or unfun.


What did the rough at Winged Foot look like in the 1930's? 1950's ? 1970's? Same question on many other famous and well regarded parkland courses in the NYC Metro area that have undergone "restoration" work?  Why restore everything but then change practices (add irrigation) for more difficult rough that I am told should extract specific "penalties"?


I am and have been a giant proponent of the restoration craze but am a little miffed that I have yet to see rough areas "restored" and am wondering if even a true believer like myself has been punked.

[Kyle Harris]

I wonder if Wayne Morrison is lurking here because Flynn, in his plans, seems to note areas that were within his design corridors that were meant to be “rough” at “broken ground.”

[Joe Hancock]

Corey,


Yeaman’s Hall did a restoration a few years ago, including a new irrigation system. They elected to leave the rough between tee and fairway unirrigated, and the rough alongside the fairways just kind of dwindles into the native areas without noticeable lushness. It was refreshing to see and play.

[Joe Hancock]

If a designer proposes having in’s and out’s for fairways and rough, they better be darn sure where that line in the grass is supposed to be. They’ll also recommend HDPE (wisely) which means those fwy/ rough lines are determined for the next 30-40 years.


I’d likely get fired shortly after I switch the fwy side of the heads to full circle, while shutting the rough heads completely off……

Joe,
  I feel like I shouldn't have to be the one to mention this or you're playing dumb for conversation purposes. Changing irrigation heads/lines to accommodate adjusted fairway lines is not than that difficult with today's knowledge & contractors abilities. Adding& subtracting pipe is pretty common in the scope of a renovation. There are 100 more difficult things during a renovation.
 
  Also, I cant say that an irrigation designer is one that is proposing the layout of heads. This is usually driven by a Supt/Boards/Committees desires & wants. Driplines, bunker misters, irrigation heads that water rough only, irrigation heads that water fairways only, water tees only....that's directed from above, not the designer.




  And yes, you're taking systems that cost north of $3m+, easy. Especially if you're adding a pump station.  Irrigation heads, installed are over $250 a head. They all basically have their own computer module in them, now.

Tony,


You absolutely are one of the many who can call me out on things. You’re career as a superintendent eclipsed mine long ago, and I sincerely acknowledge that.


However, it may be the places you’ve landed that are resulting in analysis like this. It *isn’t* easy (or cheap) to add pipe and move heads to change fairway lines, especially when irrigation head spacing continues to shrink, meaning more heads to move. For most golf courses, once the *new* irrigation system is in place, it is hard to justify dropping back and changing it…..especially after an elaborate design has been paid for.


Hope you’re well!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tony,


I'm with Joe on this one.  We are usually rushing to grass at the end of the summer season, and too many of those "easy changes" are not well tolerated by anyone who wants to keep the construction on schedule!


I'm not sure the trend is new, as we opened Colbert Hills in 2000 with part to part heads between fw and rough, and it wasn't the first course to do that even then.  There was some back and forth between sprinkler spacing and fw edge lines.  I did have some instances of having to change planned fw lines.  Most were small, a factor of the consistent head spacing favored by my irrigation designer on that project (others are more willing then he was to change out valves to vary spacing and throw).  A few were more dramatic than I would have liked, and again, once the sod was delivered, there was no going back to change if you didn't like the look.


As TD mentioned, I have always tried to fact check things, including whether tighter spacing and more heads did reduce water use.  While it could, in theory, most clubs, as is the point of this thread, seem to use the up to 23% water savings the irrigation companies claim, to water about 46% more rough at about half the rate of fw.  (I could be off on that, I think a water study might show bluegrass roughs could be watered just once per week and stay green in most of the year).


The real way to use less water (although perhaps not as efficiently) is to create a system just not capable of pumping that much water, accepting some browning.  However, I believe many areas may adopt the mantra of more precise irrigation control as code, which will probably force the more sophisticated design to become more common.  It's happening in landscape design, and it does seem to work better there.


My house has drip irrigation, and I spend the last weeks replacing some plantings, which happen to be on the same zone as my double knockout roses, which are showing signs of over watering, because they are in the same irrigation zone.  So, even landscape architects need to be pretty precise in their plans and planting plans so the irrigation can be best tailored to their landscapes.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Tony,


I'm with Joe on this one.  We are usually rushing to grass at the end of the summer season, and too many of those "easy changes" are not well tolerated by anyone who wants to keep the construction on schedule!


I'm not sure the trend is new, as we opened Colbert Hills in 2000 with part to part heads between fw and rough, and it wasn't the first course to do that even then.  There was some back and forth between sprinkler spacing and fw edge lines.  I did have some instances of having to change planned fw lines.  Most were small, a factor of the consistent head spacing favored by my irrigation designer on that project (others are more willing then he was to change out valves to vary spacing and throw).  A few were more dramatic than I would have liked, and again, once the sod was delivered, there was no going back to change if you didn't like the look.


As TD mentioned, I have always tried to fact check things, including whether tighter spacing and more heads did reduce water use.  While it could, in theory, most clubs, as is the point of this thread, seem to use the up to 23% water savings the irrigation companies claim, to water about 46% more rough at about half the rate of fw.  (I could be off on that, I think a water study might show bluegrass roughs could be watered just once per week and stay green in most of the year).


The real way to use less water (although perhaps not as efficiently) is to create a system just not capable of pumping that much water, accepting some browning.  However, I believe many areas may adopt the mantra of more precise irrigation control as code, which will probably force the more sophisticated design to become more common.  It's happening in landscape design, and it does seem to work better there.


My house has drip irrigation, and I spend the last weeks replacing some plantings, which happen to be on the same zone as my double knockout roses, which are showing signs of over watering, because they are in the same irrigation zone.  So, even landscape architects need to be pretty precise in their plans and planting plans so the irrigation can be best tailored to their landscapes.

  If changing grass lines are part of some sort of renovation, which in many cases they are, most Superintendents with any foresight know that irrigation spacing, patterns & installation play a roll in this & will be done before grass lines even change. How would you water the changed grassing lines without proper irrigation? Its so much easier now as pipe can be pulled in, not always a need for open trench.
  In the grand scheme of things, if the work is done "in house," some may think its a lot of work, but every GCM team has laid irrigation pipe, added heads & the such. If its so much work, maybe grass lines shouldn't be a big topic of change?

[Joe Hancock]

Let’s say “Club A” has no need for a renovation, nor desires one. Maybe it’s an ODG classic, but the mowing patterns don’t fit the design intent……


Now, they are in need of an irrigation upgrade, and someone calls the irrigation designer in and requests “ins-n-outs” along fairway/ rough lines. Club A says great, let’s do it, but no one determines whether or not the grass lines are in their appropriate position. Irrigation gets installed….leadership at Club A changes, and a desire for historical presentation follows. Is it still cheap and easy to make that happen?


I’m just saying an appropriate amount of forethought should be exercised before buying into the idea of such a restrictive irrigation system.

[corey miller]

It sounds like the look and play-ability of rough is now an integral design element, even on classic courses that have been restored.


How important was rough and it's strategic and punitive use to the classic era designers?


How do modern restoration experts incorporate rough into restorative work?


And why does these decisions get left to Superintendents who often operate under very strong "guidance" from greens committees who I am told defaced the classic courses in the first place? 

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I'll only interject that here in CO if you want any type of grass-like material in the rough then you have irrigation heads wall to wall. Just watering the fairway would have you down to straight dirt in the rough. So the head spacing is pretty much the same from fairway to rough except for perimeter heads that throw inwards. We have some pretty big rough hillsides that are very difficult to water. Watering them so they look nice would lead to swampiness where the hill flattens and the fairway starts. Ins/outs would be great in these areas, however we are already north of 1500 heads, and ins/outs along fairway/rough lines would have us pushing 2000-3000 heads. Also, part-circle heads are more likely to get jacked up and throw wrong, so they require consistent auditing.


I've heard old school superintendents wax wistful about the old days of night watermen and roller base sprinklers, as it was physically impossible for one or two guys to over water 18 holes. They would run out of time.


I found this fascinating for those who want to do a deep dive on golf course irrigation, Prof. Frank Rossi and Superintendent Rick Slattery of Locust Hill (retired):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWB4BShErSg

[John Emerson]

Hands down the biggest hurdle to overcome when irrigating rough is cart traffic.  I believe many courses could “tone down” the rough water usage significantly if there were no carts.  Hell, water use overall could be reduced if everyone walked.  Carts are an added stress.  I promise, turf doesn’t need anymore stress.
Many courses will never be able to accomplish less water in the rough.  Especially the courses in subdivisions with 1/8 mile drives through neighborhoods to get to the next tee.


I don’t blame the carts completely….I blame distance (and laziness if we are being honest)  If equipment didn’t allow ppl to hit the ball a mile, there would’ve never been the need for stupid long courses or carts for that matter.

[Sean_A]

Corey,

Yeaman’s Hall did a restoration a few years ago, including a new irrigation system. They elected to leave the rough between tee and fairway unirrigated, and the rough alongside the fairways just kind of dwindles into the native areas without noticeable lushness. It was refreshing to see and play.

I agree. Some of the best rough going. Pot luck lies, but balls are findable. Rough should offer hope. It's bunkers which should spell doom. For some reason many courses have it the wrong way round.

Ciao

[Sean_A]

Hands down the biggest hurdle to overcome when irrigating rough is cart traffic.  I believe many courses could “tone down” the rough water usage significantly if there were no carts.  Hell, water use overall could be reduced if everyone walked.  Carts are an added stress.  I promise, turf doesn’t need anymore stress.
Many courses will never be able to accomplish less water in the rough.  Especially the courses in subdivisions with 1/8 mile drives through neighborhoods to get to the next tee.

I don’t blame the carts completely….I blame distance (and laziness if we are being honest)  If equipment didn’t allow ppl to hit the ball a mile, there would’ve never been the need for stupid long courses or carts for that matter.

Carts were tearing up golf courses long before the equipment explosion.

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()