[Jeff Taylor]

We just finished the rebuild of the 6th green at my club. I took a series of pictures to document the project.











The green did not drain correctly and was always in bad condition. We then took the opportunity to provide more options for playing the hole. It opens in May.

[Tyler Kearns]

Jeff,

Could you describe the hole in question, and how it has become more diverse in its playability?

TK

[Jeff Taylor]

Sure. The original is described in the yardage book image. We tied the approach into the green to allow for the run up. We also widened the approach to allow a lay up closer to the hole. Bigger green is more a more attractive target from 230 and it sits a little further to the right (trees were an issue on the left sid of the fairway .
This is part 1 of what we hope will be a 2 part process of improving the hole.
Diagrams to follow.



Proposed green site revision.


Entire hole (revisions are shaded in green).


Entire image gallery can be found at http://www.pbase.com/jstaylor/6_rebuild

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, is the intent to improve the hole, by making it more "playable" i.e., easier to score?

[Jeff Taylor]

Good question. If more options in more places on the golf hole means more "palyable" or "easier to score" then yes. Trees on the corner of the dogleg had grown to the point that a lay up tee shot was required for most golfers. That made all subsequent decisions for the golfer. Hit 3 iron to 3 wood off the tee. Hit next shot to 115 yards. Hit wedge from there. Just keeping the turf at 110 to 125 in resaonable shape was a difficult task. It had become a boring 3 shot hole.
Given that phase 2 can be implemented, we would have a better match paly hole. Bite off more from the tee, take a chance at the green, see what happens. More conservative players can play it the old way (it's certainly not harder for them).

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff, was this strictly an in-house job with committee design ideas, or did an archie redesign the hole?  If so, who?

I understand that you are suggesting that under the old design there were drainage problems and perpetually wet areas in the foregreen approach coming up from right to left around the pond, through that cuppy area.  My question is why not just extend the green forward into the cuppy area, making a false front, but regrade and place extra drain line in the foregreen to dry it up and use it as a run-up area, with consequences of running too far through green on right into that bunker, or playing short side long left into that one, or short side left into pond.  Too short but otherwise well played shot shape would suffer the false front.  Wouldn't it be something like the finishing hole at Winged foot sans-pond if there were that false front?

Wasn't the old hole more difficult to mow with the foregreen in intermediate rough cut?  I don't like that.

I see the ideas behind the remodel as it is now, but I also see it as making the hole much easier.  So, it depends on the goal as you described.   Tempt the go for it in 2, as the old way was indeed more certain 3 shotter, particularly with that pesky rough in fore green.  I just don't like that feature of rogh in the foregreen on a golf hole.

[Scott Witter]

I don't think there is any question that an architect was/is involved...this effort include permitting for the new overflow structure and if you noticed, the approach had a drainage network and what appeared to be the same sand as the green to clearly make the playing conditions fast & firm!

Jeff, good photos showing the whole process...this should be valuable for those who don't understand what exactly is involved with a "simple" greens reconstruction project.  Given the equipment on site, it doesn't look like an 'in house' job.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have not see the new green site in person yet.  The old hole(Ed Ault) was not that good.  If you busted a drive around the corner it was possible to get home in two.  The risk, however, was not worth the reward.  The new green and environs look great and allow for more options on the second shot.  Good stuff.

[Rick Baril]

Jeff,
It appears (from #6 Green Detail) there was intent to expand the lake toward the green.  I assume this was to bring the water more into play.  From the finished photo, it appears the lake was not expanded and the left bunker was brought forward, if I understand the images correctly.  It would be interesting if you could explain the process that caused this departure from the proposed revision.

Assuming it was cost prohibitive to expand the lake, was there any discussion about moving the green closer to the existing lake and, in effect, recreating the original proposed modification, some yards shorter?

[Jeff Taylor]

Been away from the computer for a while. After all, this is playing weather.
This is the work of McDonald Design. They are based in Jessup MD and have done other jobs for us over the past few years.
The idea came out of committee (me mostly). We had McDonald do the slides and then went through a presentation to our Board. After much debate, the motion passed with only one "no" vote. It was over 2 years from idea to completion.
The design was a compromise (maybe that is common in your line of work). We were limited in what we could do because of the water line. Changing the pond line would result in mitigation cost due to the stream that runs behind the hole and through the property.The county government would not let us move the pond line or cut down specimen trees around the green. We had to file a "maintenance only" permit in order to get it approved. I must admit that I am saddened to see what has happened to property rights in the blue state of Maryland. The pond in question is simply a holding place for rainwater run-off. It was built before the county made a list of all ponds in their jurisdiction. Our filing was notification (if you will) that the pond existed. Then we had to wait 4 months to get approval. The approval was based on a design change that moved the green further away from the water. The county was converned about chemical usage and the stream behind the green.
Our original intent was first to fix the problem of the green complex drainage issues and then to create a risk reward hole. The last piece of the puzzle is the trees at the corner of the dogleg. As you would expect, taking out trees is controversial. Less skilled palyers think it will make the hole play easier for the better players. Tree huggers don't want to see any trees taken out. Better players see the appeal of being able to bite off as much as possible and then go for it in 2. It will be some time before this problem is solved unless someone knows where I can get some copper spikes.

Tommy, you are welcome to play as my guest next spring when the hole opens.

[Dan Moore]

The approval was based on a design change that moved the green further away from the water.

Is that why the green in the photos is placed differently than it looks in the design drawings?  If so were you also prevented from bringing it further down the fairway as originally proposed?    

[Jeff Taylor]

Yes. Local government concerns about chemical run-off and regulations about cutting trees were the man reasons that the green could not be moved further forward. However, moving the green too far would not give us the topography to the right of the green that we have now. The chipping area to the right turned out really well (in my opinion).

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

In my mind and experience, a "chipping area" is normally short grass (fairway or collar height) as opposed to what appears to be rough grass in your photos??

[Jeff Taylor]

Probably an incorrect use of terms on my part. My point is that the area to the right of a forward green does not present as good a set of short game options as the final position of the green.

[Rick Baril]

Thank you Jeff.  
Your answer was different than expected but also typical of how entitlement/approval processes can influence the design (and renovation) process.  It is a good reminder that outside influences can and do affect the process, in more ways than we appreciate.

You're right, you are now resigned to copper spikes, since the customary "intoxicated dozer operator" defense has already expired.  

Congratulations on a nice looking and well documented renovation project.

[Jeff Taylor]

Thanks Rick. After a long day on the golf course Saturday, I could have been that intoxicated dozer operator!
I started out two years ago as chariman of the Capital Fund Committee. It's $300,000 later and I have learned alot. I look at our course (heck, any course) very differently. I can't go back now. Hanging out on this sight has solidified my addiction to golf course architecture. It is almost impossible to get out of the clubhouse without getting drawn into a debate on how the hole could be better or diferent or discussiing the value of trees. I guess I asked for it though.

[Scott Witter]

Jeff:

Was there a principal designer involved from McDonald Design or was this project a collective effort from many points-of-view..I almost asked many pints-of-view, might not have been far off from that either , which by the way is no reflection on the final product, however, just an honest assessment of how these projects can occur sometimes.

Nevertheless, you are to be congraulated on your input and documentation.  Documenting the process, both design and especially construction as we know is very valuable for those who follow, or those in the present who say from the sidelines that so and so didn't do this or that right...

As I indicated to in a previous reply, was the approach  intentionally built with underdrainage and capped with sand to create firmer and faster conditions and if so, who's idea was it to do so? when considering the shortish length of this hole and the new green design?

Though at times you were probably frustrated...in the end I suspect you were glad to have been involved

So what's next for course improvements?  Best of luck

[Jeff Taylor]

The principal designer was Andrew Green. We have worked with him on several projects and have always been impressed with his insight and his focus on improvements that blend into the existing look of the course. We have rebiult 2 other greens and shaped and sodded a third. The only changes were the softening of slope in order to gain pin positions.

Andrew suggested the run up approach because that style of play exists on virtually every non par 3 on the course. He also wasn't real fond of the original design (as stated by Tony in an earlier post). Increaing player options was also a factor in the final design.
What's next? Good question. The GM is emphatic that there will be no construction in 2007. Members have dealt with less than 18 holes for two years running. I think that most of the structural stuff has been completed. We shold start thinking about tree management. This course has always been known for the mature trees that saturate the property. That canopy has expended over the years affecting air circulation as well as limiting playing options. We should also focus on beautification (landscaping tee boxes and ornamental trees that are well off the line of play).

[Bruce Katona]

It appears that you sodded the new green....any roots taking hold yet?  

Do you have a thermal blanket to keep the new grass warm a cozy this winter?

[Jeff Taylor]

We had to sod beause of permit delays. It is starting to knit and we are using blankets. Fortunately the weather has been fantastic. We are keeping it wet and letting it get as much sunlight as possible.

[RJ_Daley]

I missed the full gallery of pictures the first trip through this thread.  Now that I have had a look at the excellent documentation by Jeff of the entire process, a few more issues stand out, and are more clear as to the methods and results.  I still think I would "tinker" with mowing lines up the right side of the new green to see if a rough grass bunker is the desired effect, or perhaps an approach mowed height giving it more of a collection or chipping area sort of playing feature.  But, is there enough drainage in that cup to allow for that?  

Another think I took away from looking at the full gallery is the enormous problem and extra work that having to deal with the pond expansion and outflow engineering seems to have added.  

The extra pictures also give a much better idea of the slope from back to front on the new green.  

Well done documentation of your project Jeff.

[Jeff Taylor]

Thanks for the kind words. I really weanted to make it clear as to what was going on as opposed to taking "nice pictures". Luckily they kept a big pile of dirt left of the hole and there was a hill right of the fairway that allowed me to get above it all.
My recollection is that the drainage runs across the approach and then down the far right hand side of the hole and then dumps into a collection area way back right. It should drain well. However, as a novice, I am not sure that the tall fescue can be mowed to the height that is optimal for a collection / chipping area.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()