Modern Irrigation to create Visual Contrasts

[Dunlop_White]

Below is an edited quote:

" Easy grass demarcation lines, (which separate the fairway from rough, the fairway from bunkers, and the rough from peripheral areas), are both beautiful and pleasing; however, they are not the only things we need, and as a matter of function, they are not satisfactory if used alone. A variety of grasses must be considered to give us "contrast". This contrast will aid in making both desirable and undesirable course locations prominent and stand out in the view to the golfer. If we blend grass lines, nothing is accentuated, and in golf, the varying positions in which the ball should be placed must be emphasized, and the ability of the player to visualize or focus on such a spot, by the aid of our contrasts, is the supreme test of our work. For this reason we need a variety of grasses, with varying shades and colors, and sharper grass patterns for proper visuality. We have much in nature to copy." (George Thomas)

I contend that the proper installation and use of modern computerized, multi-row irrigation systems may tremendously aid in acheiving these classical, visual contrasts.

In other words, if irrigation is properly alligned during the installation stages so that you have the ability of limiting or controlling the amount of water distribution to a larger area of diverse turfgrasses with varying water needs (fairway grasses, rough, bunker surrounds, and peripheral areas), then one can naturally create contrasting grass colors, textures and heights. These contrasts are accomplished since water (or the lack thereof) controls growth, texture and color, and the sharp grass lines are controlled by grass varieties.

Can any supers or architects confirm my suspicion?

I feel certain that I could effectively plat out modern irrigation lines and/or heads on a golf hole by utilizing the demarcation of aesthetic grass varieties and prominent hole locations as a guide....basically "setting the table" for the Super to create contrasts through the amount of water distribution independently needed for each area.

Has such a process been performed anywhere? I believe that modern irrigation can promote a natural, classic look if architects carefully plan installation, and Supers, through trial and error, controll and limit water distribution accordingly.

[Robert_Walker]

In a perfect world, the irrigation would come from underneath the ground. I envision a kind of wicking system that would be bi-directional. It would drain the course or supply it with water. This would be perfect for a course like Newport where the water for the greens gets blown around the areas near the greens. The result is a firm green, brown fairway (good), and a soft, lush green area in front of the green that slows or stops a run up shot.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Dunlop,
Modern irrigation control systems give the super precise control of his irrigation. The control systems that are now being used on new courses are so good that I doubt most supers use more then 50% of their capabilities. So, controlling where the water goes is not as big an issue as designing a system that does what you describe. I don't see that done very often. Usually if the type of head selected and desired precip rates call for 60ft spacing then that is designed throughout the golf course regardless of grass types or grassing lines. I'd like to see more designers that take in to account the differing water needs between close cut turf and roughs. For instance, in the desert a course may be built and designed with only overseeding of the fairways planned. If that's the case it would be nice to have the irrigation system designed with the overseeding goal in mind so you don't have to have heads in the rough that are needed to water the fairway. To do this the architect has to have definitive grassing lines and the irrigation designer would do his design with those lines in mind. It would be no different if it was a northern course with bent fwys, rye/blue roughs and fescue/native areas along the perimeter of the course. All have differing water needs and all should have an irrigation design independent of each other. It wouldn't be as costly as it sounds and if designers focused more on that approach and less on moving a lot of water in a short period, I don't think it would cost more.

[TEPaul]

It's a great question, Dunlop and it's always good to hear from Don Mahaffey who seems to have as good a handle on these kinds of detailed things and gives out the best and most comprehensive information on them of any super I've  run across!

Just designing this kind of sophisticated irrigation scheme is clearly the all important first step and would seem to me to take an architect who truly can get into visualizing and understanding some very sophisticated PLAYABILITIES and some of the fine lines involved in missing the mark on them or not.

It can be so important to managing differing grasses and their vastly different playing conditions but the fact that it inherent has to be so defined in water application because of the close proximity of one type of grass to another and their differing irriagtion needs to create the proper playabilities seems to me somehow to be almost too artifical for what we like to think of as "natural golf".

But I'm sure I could get over that if it was done really well! It seems though in even the most sophisticated cases, like US Open setups, that irrigation can skew things dramatically when it was not meant to. When you get into things like long grassy bunker surrounds that are far more penal than the bunker itself or the need for particular firmness in an approach just fronting some greens instead of softness things can go awry in a hurry as they apparently did at the last Open at Pebble Beach in those two ways.

I'm sure that's not what the tournament setup was meant to be and the culprit appeared to be the inability to control irrigation water in very defined areas. In the case of Pebble in the Open the problem had to be "residual" water from the green irrigation application!

A course to watch carefully in this area of natural color contrasts and differing grasses and differing irrigation needs will be Hidden Creek slated to open in about a month. Natural color contrasts of the grasses is a big feature of the course and design, and generally they will try to achieve and maintain some real firm and fast conditions "through the greens". But the roughs will be fescue and left to look very natural which apparently will be a bit tricky in the sometimes extreme heat conditions of New Jersey.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Dunlop,

I agree with the basic concept.  For years the irrigation industry strove just to get water out in ever increasing quantities, then to control it with computers.  There has been less thought to using it as a design element.

The key seems to be use of two part circle heads on the edges of fairway/rough, rough/native and green/rough, or any area with different water needs.  The latter is now common, the second fairly common, and the first, unusual, but sure to get more common.  The part circles put water only on the area desired, and not where it is not desired, except for some incidental drift.  This is really necessary to preserve native areas, but could be used to keep roughs drier than fairways.

I have only done one course with the part to part circle heads between rough and fairway, and I will say it is difficult to accomplish.  You have to lay out the proposed fairway lines before the irrigation designer comes on site.  The irrigation designer must be willing to get away from "perfect triangular spacing" which many favor.  If he does, then using different size heads and or nozzles becomes an issue to make sure coverage is even.

I just saw a new head from Toro that cleverly takes away the need to insert a particular nozzle in a head. (Nozzle size determines gallons per minute, height of throw, and radius of throw, BTW)  The new heads have one adjustable nozzle that allows each head to have instantly be changed in those characteristics.

Net, Net, it should be easier for designers to use irregularly spaced sprinklers and make them work, which should better allow the control necessary to make this type of irrigation work.

[Dr. reynolds]

Dunlop,

This point you raise is already a common practice in both modern golf course maintenance and design. As a matter of fact it is taken even a step further utilizing the irrigation system for fertigation allowing certain turfgrass varieties and playable surfaces to look and play differently! This is especially seen in many of the modern designs in the roughs alone. They are extremely consistant and thick. Many classics could never compete unless the Club was committed financially to provide the GCS with the time and resource needed to renovate these surfaces. It's a science called natural succession!

With the game changing as quickly as it is the responsibility will inevitably fall on the superintendents shoulders.

State of ther art irrigation systems have endless flexibility and it essentially all comes down to money!  What are you trying to accomplish as a club?

The days of the single or double row Toro 790 throughing 60- 75 gpm are long gone and have been for years now. It is iconsistant and simply wastefull. State of the art systems utilize low gallonage heads with interchangeable nozzles and part circles allowing for more efficient distribution. What a great delivery system. The adition of a computerized central controller has enabled many GCS to manipulate golf course playability through good solid water management.

[TEPaul]

Dr. reynolds:

I first heard about this idea of "natural succession" within the last month concerning an interesting old golf course that has been let go and is now in the process of what was described as "natural succession"--a return to a natural nongolf state, in fact.

It would seem to me that "natural succession" as you described above regarding watering rough by a sophisticated select irrigation application process is not exactly "natural".

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

TEPaul:

Drive around the country roads of Pennsylvania and look at the farm fields, particularly where it is pasture.  That is the best looking vegetation for golf course rough.  That is natural, no irrigation.  The look may have to be managed on a golf course since cows and horses probably keep the pastures cut down.  Why do we need to do anymore than this?

[Robert "Cliff" Stanfield]

Concerning the points of laying the fairway lines out and then having the irrigation designer design the layout....I have seen this first hand at Greystone's second course done by rees Jones in Birmingham.  Two heads line the fairway edges...one for the rough and one for the fairway.  My biggest problem is that the fairway lines will be determined and set forever unless the heads are dug up and moved.  To me that seems a bit hasty in the design process to think that the fairway lines are set that early in the courses' life.  I am all for visual contrast and I think that in this case the golf course got ripped off and Rees and the irrigation supplier bought new houses  Maybe I am wrong but if anybody can really tell me the importance of the quantity of heads...the rough is bermuda and the fairways are zoysia....I would make the guess that the two will be meshing together very soon and eventually one or the other will choke out and the fairway/rough irrigation lines purchased will be as bone headed as GPS golf carts at a private club.

[Dr. reynolds]

TePaul,

The idea of natural succession is undesputable it is a fact of nature survival of the fittest!
State of the art maintenance practices including irrigation are the only available tools a GCS has to minimize this natural process of succession!

Kelly Blake Moran- This is a great idea until you're in it 200 yrds out!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Dr. Reynolds:

The type of rough I speak of that is based upon the pasture land is low, not high grass, very easy to put your club on it.  The lie may be inconsistant, bumpy.  If you need a better lie, hit it in the fairway.

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

I live on a farm and across the street is one enormous and well managed farm with everything on it--cows, horses etc. Actually it's one of the four big farms left in the general area  of Philadephia and it's suburbs which include Fitz Dixon's Erdenheim Farm over near Whitemarsh Valley G.C., the DuPont place in Newtown Square (near Aronomink) and Ardrossan Farm (also not far from Aronomink and across the street from Overbrook G.C.)

The farm fields that are basically pastureland would be just beautiful for golf "rough", as you say, but they would not have the same look or consistency of grass height if it weren't for the grazing of animals.

I even tried once for a sort of radical combination in the same overall project that involved Ardrossan Farm with the huge Farm across from me--Kirkwood Farm. The combination would have involved basically using some of the same land for both a golf course and fox hunting!

Obviously horses could not be grazed or ridden on the golf course or the rough really and the way we would have designed it was to make very wide corridors for the hunt combined with other specifically defined areas. The very wide corridors for the hunt would have been divided from the course (and its rough) by post and rail fence!!

As to how to play the ball with the post and rail fence lines, it could have been an obstruction or just play it as it lies--it would have been interesting.

Combining golf and hunting was not conceived of just to do it though! It was conceived of so very separate and sometimes inherently adverserial entities--golf and hunting--would not oppose each other for use of the land and therefore create a situation where eventually neither could or would prevail. It was an idea of combining assets to make something happen that neither may have been able to do or perpetuate on their own. I think it could have worked well enough and would have been very interesting and unique to do!

One of the interesting functions of the wide fenced corridors for hunting and riding was they were all routed along the boardering roads, so the golf holes were always inside those corridors! The thinking was it's always better to ride immediately juxtaposed to roads than to play golf immediately juxtaposed to roads!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

TE Paul,

I think I know the farm of which you speak across from Overbrook.  I believe it is near hole #15.  I redesigned #15 and #18 for them two years ago and expect to do more if I ever finish their master plan.  I expected your answer about the importance of grazing to get the look.  A good mowing is not near enough to the same?  I like the idea of combining other sports with the golf.  In South America often times the private clubs include the typical tennis, paddle tennis, and swimming, but also rugby and soccer fields.  

[Dr. Reynolds]

TePaul,
I believe the Androssan Farm you speak of is just off 320 behind The Private Girls academy.

At one time wasn't there a plan for the members at Gulph Mills to purchase or swap for that property for the new Gulph Mills club?

I've walked that property years back and thought with very little earth movement one hell of a track could be routed!

Kelly-

Many GCS would applaud you with the idea of low pasture land turf species for primary roughs.. It would never work in the US though.  

[Don_Mahaffey]

RC,
I disagree that it is boneheaded to design an irrigation system with different zones in mind. In fact I believe it to be a necessity as water quantities diminish and water quality gets worse. Fairways and roughs have different water needs as do different species of grass. I don't know that back to back parts are always needed but fairway grassing lines should, IMO, be factored into irrigation design. I also disagree with your comment about the grassing lines being too permanent or "early in the process". It is my belief that no one ever puts as much though into the design and playability of the course as it's architect. Sure, green's chairmen, golf pros and supers may down the line want to narrow or widen fwys, but my experience is those things usually happen with one hole in mind, or in a narrow minded manner. The architect should have made those fwy grassing lines with a comprehensive knowledge of the entire course. Why make it easy for someone in the future to change those lines? I've seen a hell of a lot of stupid changes made because someone thought they were an architect. Just look at how many courses have narrowed their fwys over time because someone thought that was better for the course. I think we are learning that quick knee-jerk changes are not better for the course.

Lastly, the back to back parts should actually make it easier for the super to keep one grass from taking over. Not only does he have a good definitive line to keep exact track of where the lines are, but he can give each turf the proper amount of water instead of over watering and weakening one turf trying to make sure the other has enough of what it needs. Count me in as one super who wants as much control over my irrigation as I can get.