[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

You sum it up perfectly.

I will add that we should either match the chipping areas to the distance between sprinklers (usually 65-70 feet) and keep shapes simple, or as you suggest, add a bunch of sprinklers to really make it work.

Which goes back to Tiger's original question, I guess - is all that expense worth it to maintain the "options" in chipping when you miss a green?  At the US Open, sure.  At your home club?  Possible a different story?

If you do it once, do you need to do it all 18 greens, or for variety and expense, is two times enough to keep some theme?  four? Six? nine?


Of course, the next big trend will be sand capped, drained, USGA front approaches, so any upgraded areas beside and behind greens should be very carefully considered for cost.  IMHO, in reality, most courses would do better to consider chipping fw areas 2-4, maybe 6 times, and focus on doing those where it makes most sense and then build them right to make sure it works.

[JC Urbina]

Lou.

You are correct, we did spread sand out in front and in some cases out to the left and right of the greens.  It depended on the hole and the line of play.  The greens were constructed using the California specifications for greens drainage and we also cored out the approaches and added sand and drainage.
 On hole # 12, a version of the Alps I was concerned on the amount of water that would be collecting at the bottom of the green and approach so I added additional drainage and sand to make sure the area stayed dry during heavy watering days.  In fact during grow- in it was very hard to get these areas with additional sand to germinate the hydro sprigs.  But after several mowings and fertility applications you could not tell the difference soon after sprigging.  

The soil was not very good and saving what top soil was gathered a very important part of the process.  Having Bent greens with bermuda fairways was a challenge especially on the front of each green.  We used a different style of green head to water the surfaces but it also allowed for better control of the different needs of each turf species.

The thought process was discussed with both the soils consultant and the superintendent so that they were both comfortable with the idea.

[Jeff_Brauer]

BTW, regarding wet surrounds, I did a column a while back in GCI showing how in some cases, its a matter of those part to part sprinklers being adjusted unknowingly and unthinkingly to 90 degree positions, meaning that in front of the green, four sprinklers cover the end point, with a small stop at reverse no less to put out even more water.  For all other areas, turf is covered by two or three sprinkers in a triangluated system, so its no wonder a few wet spots accrue.

Luckily in some cases, its a case of adjusting the sprinkler to 100 degrees of throw or something other than 90 to avoid that built in overwatering of select spots.

[Sean_A]

There is another often forgotten aspect of short grass surrounding greens.  Even in cases where a fall off isn't present on the right soils this sort grass area is essentially an extension of the green without the high degree of maintenance.  These are also areas where many will buy into humps n' hollows being okay because the guy "missed the green" even if most would putt from these areas.  For further interest, tight bunkering can also be highlighted as it becomes very possible to have a very puttable lie, but with sand between you and the hole.  Short grass just opens up more possibilities of design when its possible to achieve a consistent surface.

Lou

Folks seem to think their path to the hole should be divot free.  You must hate playing links in the summer or a course like Pennard all year round.  No, I wouldn't dumb down a design for the sake of divots.  I may call these areas GUR sometimes to give them a break, but I wouldn't eliminate them from the design because of collection area divots.

Ciao 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()