"TEPaul,
Are you positive that the mounds at your course have the same dimensions, and spacial relationships to one another as the mounds at Somerset Hills?"

I never said anythng like that.

Sure you did.  Just reread your post # 27.
Since we're talking about Somerset Hills, their dolomite mounds and their maintainance, you referenced your mounds at Gulf Mills infering that they bear similar characteristics, and thus have similar maintainance challenges.[/color]

"What piece of equipment do you use to maintain them?"

They don't need maintaining. The grass on them only needs to be cut. We use a fly mower on them I believe.
That means that they are too difficult for equipment to cut and must be maintained by manual labor, which is expensive.


"What equipment do you use to maintain your standard rough?"

A very large rough mower.

That equipment can't cut the mounds at Somerset Hills[/color]

"At what height are the grasses on those mounds maintained?"

Approximately the same height as the rough.

It's difficult to gain uniformity when the steep faced mounds are cut by hand, and the surrounding rough cut by riding mowers.[/color]

Does that height differ from the height of the surrounding rough?"

See last response!

"Why wouldn't you cut the grass on those mounds in the same frequency that you cut the rough where those mounds reside?"

We do, once or twice a week depending on the need.
Wouldn't the need be the same for the rough in general, requiring more hand cutting ?[/color]

Again, you said;

"TEPaul,

"Those mounds are particularly difficult to maintain, and perhaps that explains their demise."

Once, again, there's nothing particularly difficult about cutting grass on mounds once or twice a week, but I'm sure you'll think of some other non-problem to cast as 'particularly difficult'!  

I'll make it as clear as possible for you.
The steeper the slope, the more difficult it is to cut the grass.
Now, do you understand ? [/color]

Most of what maintenance does and has always done on golf courses is to cut grass!  

Obviously you haven't noticed it, but there's also been a trend over the last 70 years or so to try to reduce costs.

Architectural features which inflate costs aren't popular at most clubs.

I've seen steep faced mounds softened for the sole purpose of accomodating riding mowers (read reduced labor and cost).

Do you remember the mounds in the 12th green at GCGC.
Many state that the green was altered because of the difficulty in maintaining the mounds.

Now is it sinking in ?  

Steve Lapper,

TEPaul mistakes lack of immediate response for being stumped.
I do have a life away from GCA.com.

With respect to posing multiple questions, in TEPaul's case I do it, so that with some degree of introspection, he can find the answer within, and prompted by, the questions I pose.
This way, he thinks it's his discovery.
It's always important to let the other guy think he's won.  [/color]
 

I guess you've gathered by now that I feel the systematic absence in modern day architecture of the type of mounds were talking about here has very little to do with some fact you're trying to float that mounds are so difficult to mow or maintain that they've systematically been removed from modeen day golf architecture primarily for that reason. I just don't buy that reasoning.

Golf courses are in the business of mowing grass---they do it every day and always have.

That's where we disagree.
Golf courses are in the business of attracting golfers, at a price affordable to their target market.  And labor costs, and liability costs are a factor.[/color]

They basically just mow the architecture they have whether it's mounds, vertical bunker slopes, whatever. The rounding off of putting greens is another factor altogether and as you must or should know the shrinkage of putting greens over time has more to do with mowing techniques and the lack of maneuverability of some modern mowing equipment to turn than actually difficulty or cost.

Modern mowing equipment is directly tied in to cost, irrespective of whether you're talking about tri-plex green and fairway mowers or gang mowers.  The primary reason for going to riding green mowers was to save money, not to provide a better cut and/or a better putting surface.  It's the same thing with sand-pros.  These are cost saving devices.
They save on labor and benefit costs.  If it wasn't for riding mowers I'd venture to say that shrinkage and alterations of greens would be greatly reduced.[/color]

Frankly most courses, such as mine, never even realized their putting greens were shrinking and rounding out it happened so gradually.

Then somebody, or many people missed the boat, or didn't have the ability to tell the difference.
Viewing a foot pad in relationship to the current putting surface is usually an easy indicator of shrinkage, which can often times be confirmed by taking core samples.[/color]

So again, although you seem to be fixated on the fact that mowing mounds (or maintaining them, as you call it) is difficult and the reaason for their demise, I really don't think that's at all.

It's obvious that we disagree.
But, again, explain to me, why features such as the dolomites at Somerset Hills or the mounds at GCGC aren't often seen in modern day architecture.

I offered several reasons:

1  The desire to save construction costs and create debris
    mounds is no longer a factor today.
2  Mounds are potential liability factors when interfaced with
    carts
3   They are difficult to maintain with modern day riding
     mowers[/color]

I think mounds as an architectural feature, such as the dolomites at SH or the Ross mounds at GMGC is something that was just an architectural feature and look that frankly went out of style and out of popularity probably because modern age golf courses and their architects just felt they weren't very attractive looking.

Didn't Pete Dye try to use them at Old Marsh?
Didn't Nicklaus use try to use them Loxahatchee ?[/color]