Collection/Chipping areas

[Bill Brightly]

Our USGA rep has recommended adding a number of fairway-length collection areas around certain greens. Right now, if you miss a green long or to a side, its lob-wedge time, so his suggestion seems to make sense as it will add interest and variety.

My question: are collection areas in keeping with Macdonald and Raynor courses?

[Joe Hancock]

What capacity is the individual involved with the USGA? I know of their staff agronomists, but do they have staff architects as well?

Joe

[wsmorrison]

Mr. Wedge,

I wonder why, as does Joe, an agronimist would comment and recommend what amounts to DESIGN changes for your course.  
Was it a casual observation or was this a serious recommendation?  

I'd leave agronomy to the agronomists and I would leave design decisions to architects knowledgeable on the original designer and with an historical perspective.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Mr. Wedge,

I wonder why, as does Joe, an agronimist would comment and recommend what amounts to DESIGN changes for your course.  
Was it a casual observation or was this a serious recommendation?  

I'd leave agronomy to the agronomists and I would leave design decisions to architects knowledgeable on the original designer and with an historical perspective.

Wake up Wayne.  It happens all the time.  

[wsmorrison]

I guess I need to smell the coffee.  I had no idea it was so common.  Of course I knew that green committees tend to leave their own stamp on things, but I really was unaware that outside influences could be that prevalent.  

I think an educated membership is required as they bear the ultimate responsibility but there shouldn't be that sort of outreach by non-experts either.

Tom Paul, Jeff Mingay and some experts (membership side and professional staff) and I are planning on a handbook for green chairmen and committemen that will address restorations, renovations, governance issues, and a host of other issues for clubs.  An informed membership is essential.  We're not trying to answer all questions but provide a process to come up with the right questions and a means to get good answers.

[RJ_Daley]

Certainly, that sort of handbook would be an invaluable resource and a benefit to all concerned in such decisions.

But, Skulled W. should expand on exactly what he is asking for us to get a sense about the scope of the recommendation.  i.e. upon what basis the recommendation was made, in what capacity (official or just brainstorming with a fellow that is connected with the USGA).  

While I agree that agronomists (green section) should stick with turf solutions, I don't think it is beyond the scope for a USGA official to talk with a club about certain maintenance-setup issues for an upcoming event.  

Skulled, states that he is iquiring about a Raynor/MacDonald course.  Luckily, there are also plenty of resources like "The Evangelist of Golf" Bahto with Gib, that have some answers and thoughts to consider the classic design ideals of that design school of thought.  Then, of course there is communication with other clubs designed by that MacRaynor school, that may have examples of that sort of maintenance setup of collection chipping areas on one of the template holes that give a direction as to compatibility with design intent, and desirablity of adding those sort of areas to the dimension of shots to be played from around the MacRaynor style greens.

So, I wouldn't just put a thumbs up or down on the input by the USGA guy until we know the context of the comments.

[Peter Galea]

I don't see it as a design change. It's grass. If the members don't like it, you can park the mower for a while and grow it back.
I'd be willing to bet the cutting heights of the entire course have changed more than once since it's inception.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

An informed membership is essential.  

Wayne,

I had an informed member, in fact one that I believe was on committees at GCGC, in the process of dressing me down at lunch in front of 5 other people, state in a frantic voice that Tom Doak was making GCGC into Pacific Dunes.  That Tom had no respect for the original bunkers and was just doing his own thing.  Good luck on your project, it will help those less educated but in power do battle with the demented folks like that guy who know it all because they belong to several clubs.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I don't see it as a design change. It's grass. If the members don't like it, you can park the mower for a while and grow it back.
I'd be willing to bet the cutting heights of the entire course have changed more than once since it's inception.

Pete I think changing the mowing lines is one of the essential elements of design, and the cheapest to implement.  

[Dave_Miller]

I guess I need to smell the coffee.  I had no idea it was so common.  Of course I knew that green committees tend to leave their own stamp on things, but I really was unaware that outside influences could be that prevalent.  

I think an educated membership is required as they bear the ultimate responsibility but there shouldn't be that sort of outreach by non-experts either.

Tom Paul, Jeff Mingay and some experts (membership side and professional staff) and I are planning on a handbook for green chairmen and committemen that will address restorations, renovations, governance issues, and a host of other issues for clubs.  An informed membership is essential.  We're not trying to answer all questions but provide a process to come up with the right questions and a means to get good answers.

Wayne:
We are in the process of developing a handbook for my club in Florida.  I'll send you a copy when I get back to the house later today.
Best
Dave

[wsmorrison]

Hey, that's great Dave.  We'll just tear the cover page off and put our names on it and send it to the publisher    

Seriously, is it meant to be course specific for your FL club?

I played golf the other day (second time in 8 months) with three fellows you've heard of:  Schilling, Wakefield and Beckett.  We had a blast!  I'll actually be pulling for Beckett tonight against my Phillies.  

[cary lichtenstein]

I've got to see this handbook

[Peter Galea]

I don't see it as a design change. It's grass. If the members don't like it, you can park the mower for a while and grow it back.
I'd be willing to bet the cutting heights of the entire course have changed more than once since it's inception.

Pete I think changing the mowing lines is one of the essential elements of design, and the cheapest to implement.  

Kelly, I'll defer to you on this. Maybe it's semantics in my mind, but I see it more as a strategic change than design.

[John Gosselin]

It has been my experience that the Green Section of the USGA can be a very valuable tool when it comes to selling course restorations, rebuilds, or any other improvements that involve architecture. The ones I have delt with have done more good then bad in helping steer memberships away from bad ideas that ultimately would ruin the architecture of a particular course. I think all would recommend that clubs should be working off of some type of master plan developed by an architect that fits their clubs style and budget. Master plans, the good ones, protect the course and more importantly save most clubs thousands of dollars in the long run.

Chipping areas around greens depending on how much and where are not cheap to put in, maintain, nor take out if you don't like them. The ones here at Aronimink take significant extra effort to keep them playing the way we want the to play. Is it worth the effort? Personally I say yes from a players point of view.

[Dave_Miller]

I've got to see this handbook

Maybe if you're a good boy

[Jeff_Brauer]

The USGA site visits have been known to make gca suggestions on a variety of fronts, and it is usually a sore point for gca's.  However, I can see the fine line between course set up and course architecture, so I don't complain about it as loudly as some guys in the biz do.

Naturally, some of those architecture criticisms are aimed not at the dead guys, who haven't designed every course, but at us living guys as well.  We sometimes get reports back that the USGA has recommended a change to our designs.  Again, courses evolve, ususally for money reasons and sometimes, because someone sees a better - for them - way to do things, even it better is just an opinion.  Again, it happens, and original intent ain't really that big a whup.  Getting the best possible golf course is the big whup, no matter how it happens.

The other way to look at it is that chipping areas could just be this decade's fad, and not a long term trend.  So, just like certain types of tees, greens, or bunkers, they may look very dated when the next generation of golfers decides that this generation has really screwed it up, just like we debate here that the previous generations have really, really, got it wrong.

Paybacks aren't pretty, are they?

[Dave Bourgeois]

Wayne,

I'd like to hear more about your day with the Sox, where you played, and what they thought of the architecture!  Sorry to thread jack, but I can't let a post like that get away!

I

[TEPaul]

Kelly's right---USGA regional agronomists are supposed to stick to agronomy and not get into golf course architecture but obviously the line is narrow on some of these issues----eg like chipping areas.

Did Macdonald/Raynor do chipping areas? Just look at some of the old photos and aerials---sure they did around some greens but obviously they probably didn't refer to them as "chipping areas".  

But so what? If they work well for golf and increased interest and challenge, do them.

Harry Colt in 1913 recommended a number of chipping areas around and particularly behind some of the greens at Pine Valley but Crump never did any of them. Colt referred to those areas as things like 'turf area or bank to be kept mown'.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Architects attempt to practice agronomy all the time, what's wrong with an agronomist practicing architecture?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Architects attempt to practice agronomy all the time, what's wrong with an agronomist practicing architecture?

Don,

Come on we would never do that.  Please elaborate.

[Bill Brightly]

Wow, I didn't realize that there was a sore point between gca's and USGA agronomists...I am learning a lot on this site. For the record, he did suggest we discuss the idea of creating chipping areas with with our gca, which we have done.

It's more involved than just mower hieght, we'd have to strip out the bluegrass rough and re-sod as fairway, as well as add some berms on the outside of the collection areas.

I really just wanted to know if other MacRaynor courses maintained collection areas. (If anyone can tell me specific holes, I would appreciate it.)

Info like this is extremely helpful when a greens chairman has to explain potential changes to the committee and the membership. And I hate to burst any gca bubbles, but me saying "the gca recommended it" is not as helpful as "the gca recommended it AND it is a feature at all the courses our old dead guy built, including x,y and z courses, each in the top 100."

Look, greens chairman, agronomists, and probably 99% of all serious golfers think we are amateur golf course archtiects. That's one of the beautiful aspects of the game, and it is fun. It's how we act on our "expertise" that matters. For me, I will rely on our gca for specific design changes. But I want to be as well-educated as possible.

The manual for greens chairmen, etc. is a great idea and I would surely read it. The problem is, the most over-reaching greens  chairmen probably would not. (They know everything already, why do they need a manual?)

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kelly,
My post was a bit tongue in check...I think you knew...but are you really going to suggest that you've never suggested to an owner/client or supt. HOW he should do something to achieve a certain result. If you have always stuck to the ends and never been involved in the means relative to the turf on your courses than I stand corrected.

Fact is, IMO, the line between agronomy/architecture is pretty blurred if we are going to suggest that changing a mowing line or some other small tweak by the supt means he's practicing architecture. Happens all the time...often for very good reason. Just as architects are often very involved in selecting rootzones, grass types, irrigation methods...anything done that has to do with growing something means your into agronomy...right?

[corey miller]

Our USGA agronomist told us we could "look at old aerials" if we wanted to know the original size of the greens.  Is something wrong with that?  Especially when our "restoration architect advised softening the same greens because of "lack of pin positions" or "loss of important pin positions".  

I should get upset with a man who told us to do research before making changes rather than a architect we actually hired who just wanted to make changes that he could sell to the membership?  

[Joe Hancock]

Corey,

I trust your comments are rhetorical and sarcasrtic in nature.

Don, Kelly and myself are just pointing out what the original pooster made obvious....that USGA agronomists SOMETIMES make recommendations that APPEAR to be more of an architectural change, not just agronomic.

Personally, I wouldn't make a change to add collection/ chipping areas until I fully reviewed the history of the course, as well as anticipating the effects on todays players. One HUGE factor to consider is irrigation practices. Often, the areas around greens get too much water to make these collection/ chipping areas function appropriately. The need to be green, flawless and uniform almost always requires the super to keep things moist. If I stepped onto a typical country club today, I would likely see a maintenance regime that would not accomodate chipping/ collection areas. Most places that have added these areas start some sort of sand topdressing program on the greens surrounds, but don't have the support of the membership to start drying down the golf course.

Oh, and if your archie feels the need to desecrate your property with unneccesary mounds or other features just to leave his/her mark, you don't need a USGA agronomist to steer you clear of that kind of butchering...you need a qualified archie.

Joe

[Mike_Young]

USGA agronomist is a delicate subject.  These guys are required to sell a specific number of visits per year to the member clubs at a cost of around $2500 I think.  So it is vital that theysay what the person that is hiring them wants to hear.  If it is the supt then they will go as far as to ask a supt what it is he needs from them.  Say the supt wants lightweight fairway mowers...easy to write a report saying the course needs these mowers....say the person hiring them is the greenchairman and he wants a new supt....same thing goes....
IMHO the USGA agronomist is merely a CYA fixture for most clubs.....it is amazing what a green chairman telling a membership a "USGA agronomist"says this vs. using a private agronomic consultant....
Recently, I have seen them used as backup for keeping heavily treed areas....
USGA agronomist are political animals that serve that purpose for a club...most of them have the knowledge it is just diluted and diverted by many clubs to CYA agendas.