Behind the Green

[Jeff_Brauer]

There would also be a difference to convert from north to south.  In the south, it is generally all 419 Bermuda (although sometimes its common Bermuda, which can be mowed at fw height, but not quite as well) so the conversion cost might just be mowing. 

In the north, you might/probably have bent fw and blue rough, and the blue definitely doesn't mow low well unless its one of the new elite varieties.

Ditto if you happen to have Zoysia fairways, although the chippability of zoyzia is always a bit in question anyway in my experience.

Success is very site specific, as is costs.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't know, but what does any short grass add to maintenance? 

Increased budgets

I can only assume this is why there is the idiotic fairway pinching near greens we see all too often on American parkland courses. 

I don't think that's the reason

I would be in favour of more short grass and as a tradeoff greens rolling at 9. 

The question to either create more short grass or reduce green speeds to 9 is never a question/decision posed in green committee meetings.

One has nothing to do with the other.

Ciao

Pat

If maintained on a golf course, the features are linked.  And since there is a budget for cutting grass, it is a reasonable suggestion to create more short grass at the expense of making the shortest grass longer.  The reason country club folks don't have more short grass isn't about budget, the money is often there.  Its about priorities on how to spend the budget.  Most clubs don't value short grass as a hazard so they don't spend their budget on developing more short grass. Instead, they spend the money on trying to achieve magical stimp numbers, or on lovely even rough, or on flowers, or on cart path maintenance, or on a monochrome green look etc etc.  There are seemingly endless things to spend money on that don't actually make golf any more interesting or fun.

Sean,

Your opinion borders on bizarre in terms of how committees actually function.

The decision to create "short grass" isn't a maintainance issue, thus it rarely appears on a green budget line item.
It's an architectural issue.

As to your comment that "the money is often there" is another bizarre comment.
The pressure to reduce or contain costs is enormous and I'm not aware of any clubs with substantive slushfunds for whimsical projects.
As to the comment that there are "endless things to spend money on", I'd like to know what clubs have this luxury ?

As to "valuing short grass as a hazard", I don't know many clubs/committees who have that perspective when the architect never presented it

I know some architects who created tightly mown areas to serve as pseudo or hybrid hazards, and i've heard of a green committee deciding to  create "chipping" areas, after watching a tournament on a Pete Dye Course or after the USGA made changes at courses such as Pinehurst, but asking clubs to inject short grass as a hazard when the architect never planned same is usually a disaster waiting to happen.

Ciao

Patrick:

You're both right.  Sean is completely correct that maintaining more area of short grass vs. spending more money to get the greens faster [or something else] is a straight trade-off.  And you are completely correct that is not the way most committees function, because they don't understand the subject well enough to compare the two things.

Architecture is a series of trade-offs, but many clubs fail to understand that or to participate in the discussion of trade-offs.  Instead, they hire an architect to make decisions for them, often times irrespective of ongoing maintenance costs, and then they have to raise budgets after the fact because they can't see anyplace where anything could be cut back to compensate.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It does seem to be true that courses require increased budgets after a renovation, but then they asked for a better course, at least ten years ago.  Now, some of my work is to reduce bunkers to save maintenance.   Not sure if it saves money or just reduces the rate of budget increase for a while.

Also, there was a time when designing a "standard" bunker (as opposed to large ones) didn't raise costs so much.  You used to mow rough three times a week, and maybe rake bunkers 3-4 times a week (Sat, Su, Tue, Thur) Not sure we can fault design for the increased costs of raking six days a week, hand edging to perfection, and on and on and on.  But certainly the logical reaction is to reduce bunkers in number and size, where cost is a factor.

[Connor Dougherty]

I was reading Geoff Shackelford's The Captain the other day and was struck by a comment he made on the philosophy of George Thomas in the book. I will try to put in the exact quote this weekend when I am home (I have lent the book to my father to read) but the book commented that Thomas had almost no hazards behind the green because he did not want to punish those who attempted to make a bold play. 

Tom Doak referenced earlier in this thread that he believed the back of the green was ignored for the reason that so few end up behind. There is something to be said for Thomas' deliberate belief there should be little punishment long. On a public resort course like Ojai, this philosophy makes far more sense, as the golfer is often only making one trip and is seeing what is in front of him, almost never what lies behind. Placing hazards behind a putting surface in this situation could significantly slow down play and decrease enjoyment for the common golfer. However, I had the privilege of playing LACC a few weeks ago. It is surely a terrific golf course, but armed with this understanding of Thomas' design philosophy, I proceeded to over club on almost every hole, and ended up making pretty quick work of the golf course en route to one of my best rounds in the past several months. At a place like Ojai, those of us on here are probably the only people to realize this. But at LA Country Club, where the members are going to have a far better understanding of each hole, is this really the best philosophy? For someone that may know, how much of the membership realizes that the North course can be played in this manner?

I've been wrestling with this example because I found LACC to be a golf course of supreme interest, one which grabs your attention from start to finish with a remarkable routing and many world class golf holes. Perhaps it's limitation of hazards long is part of its genius: a way to play the golf course without severely punishing yourself, but also limiting your ability to put up a truly remarkable score.

I'm curious to see how it plays during the US Open and the Walker Cup. The bold plays that Thomas was hoping to stimulate should be more evident in match play, as playing long will not suffice on a hole by hole basis, but I do wonder if during our national championship the winner will take this philosophy to heart, and safely play his way to a score right around even par.

[Garland Bayley]

A. Vernon Macan also puts no hazards behind the green to not punish the bold player. He also avoids back to front sloping greens.
Just Call Me Mac, Michael Riste

[Lester George]

Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club (Banks) comes to mind.  Many "behind the green" problems.

Lester

[Thomas Dai]

See - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,58979.0.html - for more on behind the green. A different perspective to the norm.
atb

[RDecker]

More playability options behind and all around the green for that matter make the pin position that much more of a factor it would seem.