Grasses and Architecture

[Anthony_Nysse]

Do architects take into account what grasses the course is going to be graseed with during construction? I'm not talking greens, but banks, bunker faces, surrounds, native areas...warm season rough plays much differently than cool seasom and maintenance is much different also....feedback>

[RJ_Daley]

I wouldn't call them an architect or even golf course designer if they didn't.

[TEPaul]

The course where the architects focused on that more than any I've ever heard of is Coore & Crenshaw's Hidden Creek. For specific info and the dedication to it you should call Hidden Creek's super Jeff Riggs and ask him about it!

[TEPaul]

I guess I should also say that the primary rough areas of Hidden Creek are fescue which apparently ain't that easy to manage at first in the burning heat of some NJ summers. For the rest of the rough areas, around bunkers, whatever, I think they just experimented with throwing some natural stuff of all kinds in there and watched to see if and how it would make it. One might call the whole idea sort of the "Darwinian" theory of rough area agronomics! The ultimate idea was to end up with a rough natural look and a variation in natural color!

For another dedication to natural plant growth get in touch with Geoff Shackelford and his efforts right from the git-go at Rustic Canyon.

[Lester George]

Absolutely!!!!  Its all about texture, color, definition.  As well as playing characteristics.  

I heard a first hand story many years ago about a "Player Designer" who was asked what types of grasses he would be putting on his latest masterpiece.  His reply was scary, "I have no idea what grasses will work here or what we intend to use, I have people who work for me that are responsible for that".....

WOW!

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, Anthony, we do.

It matters a great deal in some climates, not only for decent conditioning, but also for maximum slopes on greens — and even fairway slopes and, of course, tee suraface area, as a particular turf's ability to rebound is a prime factor.

Turfgrass type is of great importance, as is the native restoration of lands we disturb in the process of building the course. Other factors are water usage, which leads to storage capacity, which leads to the possibility of a lake, which leads to land use, which affects routing, which — well — you get the idea.

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony,

Not only do we take them into account, but we frequently are second-guessed in our decisions.  For that reason, many architects (and not just pros) tend to stick to bullet-proof, boilerplate choices for the region their course is in, whether it's really the best choice or not.  And that is one reason why many courses look a lot alike.

I'm always trying to figure out some sort of different twist in whatever region we're working so our courses will look a bit different.  Pete Dye used to do that all the time, though his batting average wasn't particularly high.  I'm not batting 1.000, either, but we've only had one real fiasco, and that was where the client's other consultants overruled our original recommendation.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not batting 1.000, either, but we've only had one real fiasco, and that was where the client's other consultants overruled our original recommendation."

TomD:

That wouldn't happen to be the fescue situation that happened to plague the playability of the original Stonewall would it?

[paul cowley]

ditto tomd...

and i might add that although we usually stick with the tried and true choices for a particular regions play areas,its in the low maintained areas we are more apt to experiment with.

although i still cannot get a superintendants support for using bahia in the deep south for secondary rough and non irrigated areas.....someday soon.

[Scott_Burroughs]

"I'm not batting 1.000, either, but we've only had one real fiasco, and that was where the client's other consultants overruled our original recommendation."

TomD:

That wouldn't happen to be the fescue situation that happened to plague the playability of the original Stonewall would it?

Tom P,

I'm guessing he referring to the grass choice (and subsequent failure) at Apache Stronghold.

[RJ_Daley]

High Pointe...festuca rubra varie communtata non gratis.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Dick,

At High Pointe, it was only in how it was maintained, not the actual type of grass (I believe).  At AS, someone else overruled Doak's recommendation on the grass type, then it failed and couldn't grow.  They just put in the 'right' grass within the past year or two.

[RJ_Daley]

It seems Tom has experienced 'festucas interuptus' a few times.

[Tom_Doak]

Dick,

I was referring to Apache Stronghold.  Fescue was the right choice at High Pointe, but probably not the right client for it.  Still, if we'd have known to hire Ken Nice when he was about 17 years old, High Pointe would probably have the best playing surface in America.

At least we learned from our trials, so we could get it right at Pacific Dunes, Barnbougle, etc.

In truth, the "other" grass recommendation might have worked out at Apache Stronghold, if they had been committed enough to find the right superintendent to make it work there, and given him the resources to do it.  But it was always going to be a tough place to grow cool-season grass, and the tribe were the last people who should have tried something tricky.

[Tom_Doak]

I remember once when I was working for Pete Dye he casually asked me which course, of all I had seen, was the one that had done the most experimenting with grasses.  I replied right away that it was Eb Steineger at Pine Valley.  And that was Pete's point; one of the reasons Pine Valley is so good is because of all the plant work they'd done.

Royal Melbourne would fall in the same category.

[TEPaul]

"Royal Melbourne would fall in the same category."

And on that very point Peter Thomson spoke interestingly and eloquently when he sat in the booth during the final round at the Heineken at RM last week. He spoke about a former superintendent who nursed practically every "Darwinian" plant on the course for his entire career. Thomson also remarked on the different playability of the green surfaces and their different and firm multi-grass surfaces under that wonderful old former superintendent. Probably most watching and listening missed what Thomson said or it significance.

I swear that Peter Thomson is the most interesting and informative golf commentator I've ever heard and by about a hundred miles---and I don't even think he is a golf commentator. He made Renton Laidlaw look like a mindless clatterer!

[Anthony_Nysse]

If memory serves me right, doesn't Davis Stone at The Honors experiment alot with grasses, especially in the native areas? I think that's why they have the great color that they do. I know Pete speaks very highly of Mr. Stone...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Anthony,

Not only do we take them into account, but we frequently are second-guessed in our decisions.  For that reason, many architects (and not just pros) tend to stick to bullet-proof, boilerplate choices for the region their course is in, whether it's really the best choice or not.  And that is one reason why many courses look a lot alike.

I'm always trying to figure out some sort of different twist in whatever region we're working so our courses will look a bit different.  Pete Dye used to do that all the time, though his batting average wasn't particularly high.  

Tom is right, of course, except with all the grass choices out there, I'm not sure if you can say there is a "right" choice out there in many cases.  When it comes to green (and yellow/brown, as the case may be), its no longer black and white, but grey area in your choices.

Any more, its what you and the superintendent favor - water tolerance over cutting height, or color?  Disease resistance of a mixed stand or playability of a monoculture?  Putting quality of the A1-A4 blend, or a medium maintenance L-93 which ain't too shabby either?

Grass selection is getting to be an area where there are no shortage of opinions, much like greens mix was a decade ago.  Most projects have agronomists, but so do most seed companies, and we spend quite a bit of time listening to sales pitches of the latest and greatest.

Worst yet, is that the contractors often don't care, and may substitute a slightly different brand, or the suppliers may put in a slightly different mix, all to save a few pennies per pound.  So, that is something I have taken to watching more carefully after waiting a year to find I didn't get the results I wanted the next spring!

As to using new grasses, any architect can tell you stories about being the first to use a wonder grass - for some reason, it hardly ever works out as well as advertised.  Whereas Penncross bent, for example, had twenty years of development time in plots, and now fifty years of known data, some of the new hybrids are developed in less than ten years.  Many consider the process less reliable, and in any case, the "safe" choice is something you have seen work in a similar climate over "proclaimed" advantages of some new turf.