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.


Tom_Doak

Re: Fairway Width vs "Sustainability"
« Reply #25 on: March 25, 2010, 06:48:56 PM »
I thought Stoneagle was an excellent example of a wide course that had limited turf.  Perhaps, the approach of shared fairways and big blotches of unmaintained hazards is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Is it Palm Springs or Phoenix that has the 90 acre irrigated turf limit?

Bill:

It's the state of Arizona that has the 90-acre limit on irrigated turf, except on the reservations.  Apache Stronghold is [was?] the only course I know of which exceeded 90 acres of turf, partly because the Tribe urged me to do so.  Most of the water for Tucson passes under the reservation, and they have unlimited rights to it, and were determined to use some.

Most of the desert courses are not close to the 90-acre limit ... most are between 60 and 75 acres of irrigated turf.  Even that much turf requires an enormous volume of water in the summer months, and water is not free there, so there are economic incentives not to push the line.

Jud_T

Re: Fairway Width vs "Sustainability"
« Reply #26 on: March 25, 2010, 07:57:50 PM »
quotes from the newest issue of Golfweek about C&C's work on Pinehurst #2:

"Fairway corridors have been widened to 53 yards-no typo there-almost double their former width."

"The work will bring back the old playing widths while reducing the total turf coverage that has to be maintained.  By some back-of-the-envelope calculations, The Forecaddie figures that the total acreage to be maintained could be reduced from 80 to 55."

"Mike Davis...endorses the planned work at Pinehurst No. 2 as "a showcase" for what he has been touting for golf-course setups - more environmentally sustainable golf and a return to "firm and fast"".
Golf is a game. We play it. Somewhere along the way we took the fun out of it and charged a premium to be punished.- - Ron Sirak

Jim Johnson

Re: Fairway Width vs "Sustainability"
« Reply #27 on: March 20, 2013, 12:53:30 AM »
I thought Stoneagle was an excellent example of a wide course that had limited turf.  Perhaps, the approach of shared fairways and big blotches of unmaintained hazards is a way to have the best of both worlds.

Is it Palm Springs or Phoenix that has the 90 acre irrigated turf limit?

Bill:

It's the state of Arizona that has the 90-acre limit on irrigated turf, except on the reservations.  Apache Stronghold is [was?] the only course I know of which exceeded 90 acres of turf, partly because the Tribe urged me to do so.  Most of the water for Tucson passes under the reservation, and they have unlimited rights to it, and were determined to use some.

Most of the desert courses are not close to the 90-acre limit ... most are between 60 and 75 acres of irrigated turf.  Even that much turf requires an enormous volume of water in the summer months, and water is not free there, so there are economic incentives not to push the line.

Tom, this is interesting. I've been doing some research on Apache Stronghold for an upcoming trip there, and using Google Planimeter software, I've found that the total fairway acreage is a surprisingly low 27 acres, and the total irrigated turf is "only" 65.3 acres.

Jim

Tags: