News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
The above is a premise put forward by a participant in Ian's Golf Design Is Bright Thread.  It refers to archies of the past 20 years, so pretty much spot on with the resurgence in classic architecture (or at least trying to look classic). 

What do folks think about this title line?

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2012, 01:13:50 PM »
Sean

I'm not sure I understand the title but if you mean thrilly/lacy edged bunkers are maintenance nightmare, I suspect that you are completely correct. I also tend to think that in most instances they fall well short of what was intended.

If you don't mean that then apologies.

Niall

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2012, 02:45:58 PM »
Sean,
I have heard that line before.  I think it rings true for much of what was designed on the upper end over the last 20 years...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2012, 04:19:31 PM »
Without any context, I read the line a bit differently.

Does it mean that (A) the flawed design that has a lot of money spent on it to make it "look good" will be viewed by the general public as a better course than (B) the architecturally interesting course that is maintained on a bare bones budget?

If that is the case, I'd tend to agree.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2012, 04:28:02 PM »
What he is saying similar to the movie business.  One hires some big name actors, spends a fortune on the set and the movie affects and markets the hell out of only to see it flop.  In golf, there is a lot of bad stuff that has been built for extremely high budgets and it has had high maintenance cost "built -in" to it.  The actual design is bad but with enough marketing and over the top maintenance the average, unknowing golfer will consider it a superior product.  And the ultimate is get a 50,000 clubhouse with a portrait of the owner and family as you enter... ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2012, 04:41:57 PM »
I agree with Mike's comment completely, especially the "built-in" part.
I consider a golf course that requires a large maintenance crew to keep it good, to be poorly designed.
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2012, 03:40:39 AM »
Agree entirely with the two Mikes... See Ireland inland courses 1990 - 2007 for some of the best examples of all...

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2012, 08:32:32 AM »
I always liked Tom Watson's comment that if a course needed to be maintained well to play well, it was a poor design.  I am not quite sure that I can come up with examples of say, a JN or Faz course that couldn't play reasonably with lesser degrees of maintenance right off the bat, so the premise of this thread is probably too generalized.   In fact, in one way, it reminds me of the recent election where both sides used sound bites not really for discussion points, but to "prove" their POV, at least to themselves.  In this case, its example No. 3650 of "Minimalism is better" and aha moment......

I agree with the Mike's that some 1990's courses (including some of mine) had some high maintenance built in.  Mow time is increased with mounds, as well as water time and use. 

Other factors include losing some of the "maintenance first" design ideas that the RTJ era guys almost never missed, to create more "wow" in the designs, including NEVER letting any uphill water flow into the bunkers or on to greens.  Also they rarely used basins except where they were absolutely required to block off large flows.  They tend to add maintenance.  That said, I still favor sort of a middle ground between no basins and those used to limit flows to about 300 feet, because long swales are built in wet spots too.

Short version, I took the original post to mean the mounding typically used in the 1990's and I agree.  Certainly, less contour means easier, faster mowing, although some of my super friends don't see as measureable difference as you might expect.  Of course, its hard to come by time and motion studies for mowing, despite many people claiming to do them.  It always seems that the results are due in "next month."  The distinction point is when their employees actually have to white knuckle it and fear for their life when mowing mounds.

If we were talking bunkers and edges, I presume that the smooth edge Augusta bunkers are probably a lot less intensive (by need, if not by actual choice) than the frilly edge bunkers.  However, you could argue that reducing contouring offsets the total maintenance cost of the frilly edge bunkers.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Peter Pallotta

Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2012, 12:16:52 PM »
Good posts, Jeff - thanks.

It has to be rephrased, doesn't it? Something like: "The typical design choices of any given school of golf course architecture are largely inseperable from the anticipated/normative maintenance regime for that particular school of/approach to design, such that changing tastes (and economic and environmental circumstances and restrictions) in regards to how a course will be presented and maintained will perforce engender a re-examination and re-evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of said approach/design philosophy. Such a re-examination, however, need not prejudice ones views about the underlying validity and appeal of a given philosophy, and will not so prejudice unless one takes an extremely short-term view on the art-craft that is gca, and/or confuses always changing popular tastes with eternally true fundamental principles."

What do you think? Lacks some of the pithiness and simplicity of the original thread title, but since I don't have to water or maintain the post, I can't see the harm...

Peter
« Last Edit: November 15, 2012, 12:42:19 PM by PPallotta »

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2012, 01:12:40 PM »
Jeff
I was thinking more of irrigation and detail work - lots of heights of cut
Mounds exacerbate the above problems, and I was ignoring mounds as they are often poor design in and of themselves
cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2012, 01:49:58 PM »
Jeff,
My point is still a little different.  I have seen some extremely high budget courses with horrible routings, green designs that did not fit the approach shot, poor turnpoints, terrible strategy and these courses have been touted as "Best New" this or that.  But they had textured cartpaths, great signage, nice halfway house, .250 height fairways striped in checkerboard pattern,walked mowed greens, bunkers with perfect sand, tight approaches and chipping areas, 2500 irrigation heads, couple of million dollars in plantings and landscaping and of course a million dollar maintenance facility and last but not least a big name.  I really didn't think about whether it had mounds or not.   ;)
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2012, 03:16:55 PM »
Mike and Mike,

Mike N,

I agree on the detail work and grassing differences.  I once heard a presentation from the super of a Pete Dye design lamenting the six different grasses he had to maintain differently.  And that was before the elaborate part to part sprinklers, which probably should have made it easier, but also probably didn't.

Mike Y,

I know what you mean, but as I said, those are "typified" by JN and TF courses.  I would be hard pressed although I haven't seen them all to see a really poorly designed course by either of those two, regardless of whether you like the style or some of the strategeries.  Again, I haven't played them all, but among the bigs, and most of the smalls, I don't see horrible designs on a consistent basis.  There are of course, off line only discussions about the few who truly are horrible......

Similarly, I don't know that I consider irrigation part of design.  Its a function of the owner wanting wall to wall coverage and follows the design, not dictates it.  That is unless you have the concept of wall to wall green to sell surrounding houses.

But, I agree and like the courses that have charm without all the excess.  It really isn't required for good golf, but a few folks have always seemed to like to one up the last guy with ornamentation.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Design Abilities Were Always Overcome By Exorbitant Maintenance Budgets
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2012, 05:07:29 PM »
Jeff,
I honestly wasn't thinking JN or TF.  I actually appreciate much of Nicklaus' work and the same for some TF.  Just trust me...I was thinking more like some of the one or two course pros etc. 
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"