Sporty Old Courses: Myopia v. Somerset Hills

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Observation, dialoque with supers and common sense.

YES.

Daryl,

Call me the next time you're coming up

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Observation, dialoque with supers and common sense."

Pat:

Oh really? Then what exactly does your observation, dialoque with supers and your common sense tell you is so difficult in maintaining mounds? We have some old Ross mounds at GMGC and the only thing about their maintenance is simply cutting the grass on them them now and then.    

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Are you positive that the mounds at your course have the same dimensions, and spacial relationships to one another as the mounds at Somerset Hills ?

What piece of equipment do you use to maintain them ?

What equipment do you use to maintain your standard rough ?

At what height are the grasses on those mounds maintained ?

Does that height differ from the height of the surrounding rough ?

Why wouldn't you cut the grass on those mounds in the same frequency that you cut the rough where those mounds reside ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Are you positive that the mounds at your course have the same dimensions, and spacial relationships to one another as the mounds at Somerset Hills?"

I never said anythng like that.

"What piece of equipment do you use to maintain them?"

They don't need maintaining. The grass on them only needs to be cut. We use a fly mower on them I believe.

"What equipment do you use to maintain your standard rough?"

A very large rough mower.

"At what height are the grasses on those mounds maintained?"

Approximately the same height as the rough.

Does that height differ from the height of the surrounding rough?"

See last response!

"Why wouldn't you cut the grass on those mounds in the same frequency that you cut the rough where those mounds reside?"

We do, once or twice a week depending on the need.

Again, you said;

"TEPaul,

"Those mounds are particularly difficult to maintain, and perhaps that explains their demise."

Once, again, there's nothing particularly difficult about cutting grass on mounds once or twice a week, but I'm sure you'll think of some other non-problem to cast as 'particularly difficult'!  

Most of what maintenance does and has always done on golf courses is to cut grass!  
 

[Steve Lapper]

Dolomites are the mounds on the green.  See "Italy".

Bill:

   The "Dolomites" are a direct reference to the mounding that occurs to the left side of # 4's fairway and green. There are no "mounds" on that green.

Daryl:

   The 5th green (your posted photo) was indeed not original terrain. I'm told by club historians that in the mid 30's the hole was deemed to be too easy and too approachable from the shorter left-hand side of the fairway. The green was mounded to punish shots left long from that side (early reactionary defensing to length!) It is ineed unpinnable back all the way back there but any deep pin on that green  brings those humps into play unless the approach is a short, left and wise one. The green, away from this feature is definitely the most benign putting surface on the course.
      In your second phote (showing the "Dolomite mounding") it should be noted that it separates holes #4 and 6.

Pat:

Having asked the super recently about the maintainence of the mounding, he said he keeps it to standard rough length for the most part and uses a hand mower. He also mentioned (with a snicker)that occasionally he can't get the absolute trough cut perfectly so it can get a tad "gnarly" in those from time-to-time. I don't think hand-mowing makes it "difficult to maintain."
    Other than the length and continuation of the mounding along the left side of #4 ....nowhere else is there any other mounding that comes into play for any driving LZs.

Tom MacWood:

    You are indeed correct about the influence of MacDonald and JH Taylor, thru Peter Lees, appearing evident at SH. This is one of the rare examples of architectual transition between golden age generations. That is one of SH's greatest charms.
       

[TEPaul]

"I don't think hand-moxing makes it "difficult to maintain."

Steve:

You mark my words---although practically any idiot knows that mowing grass is and has never been that difficult a thing to do, Pat is going to come up with some other mindless reasons why it is or can be!!    

Tees, fairways and putting greens take a lot more mowing than rough and mounds in rough so let's ask Pat if he thinks we can expect the virtual demise of all the world's tees, fairways and putting greens sometime soon.  

[Steve Lapper]

Tom:

   We ALL know Pat should have been a Socratic law professor. He's likely to find at least 14 other questions to ask post these last few posts  He's neve met a question he couldn't find at least 5 more ?? for.

   

[TEPaul]

"We ALL know Pat should have been a Socratic law professor."

Steverino:

Not in my opinion! Not unless one wanted to give Socrates a bad name! The best one can say about Pat is that he's argumentative in the extreme---and for no apparent purpose!

I've said it before but there is a way to tell you've beaten Pat to pulp in a discussion or argument. It's when he doesn't respond---a post from him is not forthcoming to your last one to him. That ONLY means he's been totally defeated and he can't even think of another mindless question to ask in response!  

This website's back pages are absolutely littered with posts from me to Pat where there's no response at all from him. The number of times I've beaten him to a pulp in a discussion or argument on here is far too numerous to count!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul,
Are you positive that the mounds at your course have the same dimensions, and spacial relationships to one another as the mounds at Somerset Hills?"

I never said anythng like that.

Sure you did.  Just reread your post # 27.
Since we're talking about Somerset Hills, their dolomite mounds and their maintainance, you referenced your mounds at Gulf Mills infering that they bear similar characteristics, and thus have similar maintainance challenges.[/color]

"What piece of equipment do you use to maintain them?"

They don't need maintaining. The grass on them only needs to be cut. We use a fly mower on them I believe.
That means that they are too difficult for equipment to cut and must be maintained by manual labor, which is expensive.


"What equipment do you use to maintain your standard rough?"

A very large rough mower.

That equipment can't cut the mounds at Somerset Hills[/color]

"At what height are the grasses on those mounds maintained?"

Approximately the same height as the rough.

It's difficult to gain uniformity when the steep faced mounds are cut by hand, and the surrounding rough cut by riding mowers.[/color]

Does that height differ from the height of the surrounding rough?"

See last response!

"Why wouldn't you cut the grass on those mounds in the same frequency that you cut the rough where those mounds reside?"

We do, once or twice a week depending on the need.
Wouldn't the need be the same for the rough in general, requiring more hand cutting ?[/color]

Again, you said;

"TEPaul,

"Those mounds are particularly difficult to maintain, and perhaps that explains their demise."

Once, again, there's nothing particularly difficult about cutting grass on mounds once or twice a week, but I'm sure you'll think of some other non-problem to cast as 'particularly difficult'!  

I'll make it as clear as possible for you.
The steeper the slope, the more difficult it is to cut the grass.
Now, do you understand ? [/color]

Most of what maintenance does and has always done on golf courses is to cut grass!  

Obviously you haven't noticed it, but there's also been a trend over the last 70 years or so to try to reduce costs.

Architectural features which inflate costs aren't popular at most clubs.

I've seen steep faced mounds softened for the sole purpose of accomodating riding mowers (read reduced labor and cost).

Do you remember the mounds in the 12th green at GCGC.
Many state that the green was altered because of the difficulty in maintaining the mounds.

Now is it sinking in ?  

Steve Lapper,

TEPaul mistakes lack of immediate response for being stumped.
I do have a life away from GCA.com.

With respect to posing multiple questions, in TEPaul's case I do it, so that with some degree of introspection, he can find the answer within, and prompted by, the questions I pose.
This way, he thinks it's his discovery.
It's always important to let the other guy think he's won.  [/color]
 

[TEPaul]

Steverino:

What did I tell you about Pat? Do you believe that last post of his? That guy can complicate the pants off a meditation session of a bunch of Tibetan monks!

Pat:

I've lived on a farm for about 50 of my 60 years and I've been cutting grass all my life with all kinds of equipment in all kinds of places. And I'm pretty involved in the maintenance practices on our golf course, costs etc. Cutting grass on mounds or bunker faces or rough areas or whatever is cutting grass pal! It ain't that big a deal and although my members are pretty frugal, the thought of obsoleting or softening some of our mounds to save money on cutting the grass on them would be perceived as perhaps the stupidest thing imaginable---for the simple reason it is!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How are things down on olde Cannabis Farms ?

I had heard that you only cut the grass when it's fully matured, at the end of growing season.

In addition to Somerset Hills, GCGC has more then its fair share of small mounds, not unlike the dolomites, and I can tell you that they ARE difficult to maintain.

Riding mowers can't get in there, hence they are mowed by manual labor, and you should know how that works.

Reference shrinking greens if you've forgotten.

Cutting grass on mounds or bunker faces is a function of slope, and can be a difficult task.  When you combine that with multiple mounds that look like a tank trap field, it's even more difficult, enough so that many clubs have eliminated mounds in an effort to save costs.

How do you explain their systemic absence from modern day architecture ?  

[TEPaul]

"How do you explain their systemic absence from modern day architecture?"

Pat:

I guess you've gathered by now that I feel the systematic absence in modern day architecture of the type of mounds were talking about here has very little to do with some fact you're trying to float that mounds are so difficult to mow or maintain that they've systematically been removed from modeen day golf architecture primarily for that reason. I just don't buy that reasoning. Golf courses are in the business of mowing grass---they do it every day and always have. They basically just mow the architecture they have whether it's mounds, vertical bunker slopes, whatever. The rounding off of putting greens is another factor altogether and as you must or should know the shrinkage of putting greens over time has more to do with mowing techniques and the lack of maneuverability of some modern mowing equipment to turn than actually difficulty or cost. Frankly most courses, such as mine, never even realized their putting greens were shrinking and rounding out it happened so gradually.

So again, although you seem to be fixated on the fact that mowing mounds (or maintaining them, as you call it) is difficult and the reaason for their demise, I really don't think that's at all.

I think mounds as an architectural feature, such as the dolomites at SH or the Ross mounds at GMGC is something that was just an architectural feature and look that frankly went out of style and out of popularity probably because modern age golf courses and their architects just felt they weren't very attractive looking.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I guess you've gathered by now that I feel the systematic absence in modern day architecture of the type of mounds were talking about here has very little to do with some fact you're trying to float that mounds are so difficult to mow or maintain that they've systematically been removed from modeen day golf architecture primarily for that reason. I just don't buy that reasoning.

Golf courses are in the business of mowing grass---they do it every day and always have.

That's where we disagree.
Golf courses are in the business of attracting golfers, at a price affordable to their target market.  And labor costs, and liability costs are a factor.[/color]

They basically just mow the architecture they have whether it's mounds, vertical bunker slopes, whatever. The rounding off of putting greens is another factor altogether and as you must or should know the shrinkage of putting greens over time has more to do with mowing techniques and the lack of maneuverability of some modern mowing equipment to turn than actually difficulty or cost.

Modern mowing equipment is directly tied in to cost, irrespective of whether you're talking about tri-plex green and fairway mowers or gang mowers.  The primary reason for going to riding green mowers was to save money, not to provide a better cut and/or a better putting surface.  It's the same thing with sand-pros.  These are cost saving devices.
They save on labor and benefit costs.  If it wasn't for riding mowers I'd venture to say that shrinkage and alterations of greens would be greatly reduced.[/color]

Frankly most courses, such as mine, never even realized their putting greens were shrinking and rounding out it happened so gradually.

Then somebody, or many people missed the boat, or didn't have the ability to tell the difference.
Viewing a foot pad in relationship to the current putting surface is usually an easy indicator of shrinkage, which can often times be confirmed by taking core samples.[/color]

So again, although you seem to be fixated on the fact that mowing mounds (or maintaining them, as you call it) is difficult and the reaason for their demise, I really don't think that's at all.

It's obvious that we disagree.
But, again, explain to me, why features such as the dolomites at Somerset Hills or the mounds at GCGC aren't often seen in modern day architecture.

I offered several reasons:

1  The desire to save construction costs and create debris
    mounds is no longer a factor today.
2  Mounds are potential liability factors when interfaced with
    carts
3   They are difficult to maintain with modern day riding
     mowers[/color]

I think mounds as an architectural feature, such as the dolomites at SH or the Ross mounds at GMGC is something that was just an architectural feature and look that frankly went out of style and out of popularity probably because modern age golf courses and their architects just felt they weren't very attractive looking.

Didn't Pete Dye try to use them at Old Marsh?
Didn't Nicklaus use try to use them Loxahatchee ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

"It's obvious that we disagree.
But, again, explain to me, why features such as the dolomites at Somerset Hills or the mounds at GCGC aren't often seen in modern day architecture."

Pat:

It sure is--it's about as clear as it can get we disagree. You want me to explain to you AGAIN why I think things like the dolomites at SH and the Ross mounds at GMGC aren't often seen in modern day architecture? OK, I think they aren't because over time they simply became unpopular as a feature because too many felt they were unattractive looking, old fashioned looking, quirky, and they didn't want to build them anymore--they wanted to go on to something new and different in style and look. This is not to say times don't change, they absolutely always do, and old fashioned stuff begins to recycle and become popular again. Just contemplate for a moment the success of Ralph Lauren's empire---it's a style recycle, if I ever saw one!

The old fashioned mounds of courses like SH and GMGC and many others will probably be making a comeback---they probably already are. In case you've missed it we're into the meat of a renaissance in golf architecture---old style is beginning to recycle again bigtime---hence all these restorations and such in the last 10 years that had never even been considered previously! And just like back in that day they'll mow them and maintain them however is necessary. The cost or difficulty of mowing them is not a factor----what you say and surmise about that is simply incorrect---as you are about 98% of the time.

[ForkaB]

Pat

The mounds and mini-mounds and micro-mini-mounds and even "Maxwell poofs" that exist naturally on true links courses in GBI are more maintenance-challenging than any such features I have seen in the US (in my 40+ years of living there).  And yet, over here, these features have been mowed entirely (except, in some cases, for bunker surrounds) by riding mowers for many years now with little difficulty and no adverse effects.

The only reason I can think as to why this practice is not followed in the US is either poor subsoil conditioning or lack of imagination, leadership, training and/or cojones!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Americans are pretty good at some things but it appears certain that Pat Mucci and a good amount of Americans are just seriously "convex challenged"! It may be Freudian---sort of the residual effects of some kind of maternal stigma born of a misdirected age of a peculiar type of American Victorianism. It could also be the reason most all American men secretly lust after European women but have an near impossible time admitting it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

Wouldn't heavy mowing equipment flatten those small, yet steep faced mounds ?

TEPaul,

The next time you visit GCGC let's view the small mounds, especially the one's interspersed amongst pot bunkers, and then you can tell me, the green committee and the superintendent how they can be mowed with a riding mower.

We can also undertake the same exercise at Somerset Hills.

Perhaps you need to be onsite to refresh your memory and jog your senses.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I never said anything about mowing mounds with a riding mower. I never mentioned a riding mower at all except the one we use in the areas of our rough where they can mow properly. Go back and read what I wrote since you're such a stickler with others reading what you write. There're plenty of available types of equipment to mow just about anything on a golf course. What do you suppose that equipment is produced for?