Architecture vs Agronomy

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

I think you bring a great perspective to the projects you work on.  I tried to gain that perspective by a few summers of maintenance work, but yours is obviously much greater.

As an architect, I find that many supers don't mind some difficult maintenance if they can plan for it.  If a guy has a big green, or heavily mounded course, it simply takes three guys rather than two to mow. 

The biggest gripes are the designed in wear patterns and the "can't predict rain" bunker washout/shovel ups.  Of course, bad drainage is always frowned upon, as it's predictably a constant problem.

[Scott Macpherson]

Grant,

Since you started this post in 2007 you have developed your own skills considerably. You are back being a green keeper now, but have been involved with the construction and shaping of others. I know you think deeply and care about these matters, where do you think the best balance lies?

scott

[Grant Saunders]

Hi Scott

Hope you had a good trip back home.

I agree with exactly what Don has said. Challenges are fine as long as theres allowance made in other areas to free up the resources to commit to them.

For me, Harewood was a good example of this on a number of levels.

Firstly: the bunkering isnt suited to being maitained with a sandpro yet with only a dozen or so on the entire course hand raking isnt a problem.

Second: the fifth green certainly pushes the boundaries of what a triplex mower can achieve. As we talked about the other day, if the mower can follow the contours well on 3 different directions of cut yet on ther fourth it may struggle a bit, I have no problem with that at all. Also, during construction, I had talks with Colin about the possibility of hand mowing either the whole green or just the perimeter if the triplex was not going to cope. Colin, who was incredibly open minded (which has proven to be a big factor in the success of that project) had no problems with doing so if needed.

Third: The contouring around the greens is much more intricate than what existed previously. With the switch to short grass around those greens, cutting with a reel mower reduces the potential for scalping and allowed more freedom in what could be created and resulted in a more interesting and natural product.

During a greenkeepers filed day/course visit these features where not meet with enthusiasim at all. The overiding opinion was maintnenace would be an issue and many of the visitors were heavily critical of the design because of that. I personally was very diappointed in the reaction as they failed to view the course as a golfer and see how much fun it was going to be.

Since I have been in this industry, my views have changed a number of times as I have been exposed to new ideas and seen different ways to accomplish things. I feel that I now have the best grasp of balance that I have experienced to date and find myself constantly assesing the course to see how I can enhance the golfing experience while working within the constraints placed upon me. It is at times difficult as my views certainly position me in the minority, by a considerable margin, within the local /national industry.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Grant,
I’m disappointed by the reaction the features received at the field day, but not surprised.
Tell a young superintendent that one of the 18 greens can only be cut in three different directions instead of the normal four, and the likely response is someone did something wrong.
We have some greens at Wolf Point that don’t handle a certain direction of cut very well. Most of the time, on the day we’re supposed to cut that direction we just drive on by and roll the green instead.
We have some areas that are tight to mow with a triplex and if they start to wear, we just cut them with a walker for a few weeks. It is the superintendent’s physical fitness program, plus it helps keep him off of Golfclubatlas.

[Ben Sims]

The first and only greens I've ever cut are at Wolf Point on a triplex.  Most of the greens looked to be "out of the limits" of what a triplex could do from my extremely basic knowledge at that time.  Then I started mowing.  Seemed to work just fine!  I can count 2-4 spots on 18 greens where I slowed down to ensure I wasn't making a mistake that would be caused by the contour and the lack of  articulation of the reels.  I wonder how many supers would freak out over triplex use on those greens if they saw them.

What makes Don such a great mentor is that he isn't shy about letting me know when I'm buying into something rudimentary and basic when he sees a chance to be aggressive and challenge conventional wisdom.  Conversely, he isn't shy about telling me I'm a dumbass when I dismiss conventional wisdom as something that lemmings would do. 

Architecture benefits from maintenance professionals that are informed and intellectual about their craft in such a way that allows them to push the envelope.  There is nothing safe about maintaining bunkers right up to a green edge, or mowing a fairway bunker to the lip, or accepting drier high spots and lower wet spots for the sake of having fairway undulations.  But great architecture has traditionally had landforms that are unique and aggressive.  It takes unique and aggressive maintenance to take care of those forms. 

[Stewart Naugler]

Most superintendents tell me that architects don't give a damn about maintenance.

I've witnessed a few renovations where the architect could have made minor changes that would have made a world of difference for years to come. Which sadly led me to believe that architects don't concern themselves with maintaining the golf course once they leave the property.

I know if I were an architect I'd be very concerned about maintenance because it can really affect how the golf course is played. I'm still an assistant superintendent but I can guarantee you once I'm a head superintendent I won't recommend an architect that isn't conscious of how the golf course will be maintained.

I still have faith in a few of my architect friends and drainage is everything!

[Don_Mahaffey]

SNaugler,
My only comment, its a golf course, not a turf research area. Its not about how easy it is to maintain, its about how good it can be with what you have.

[Stewart Naugler]

Don-

I apologize for being vague because I don't want to name the courses or architects. With that said, my comments were more about maintaining consistently fast and firm playing surfaces. I do know that many superintendents complain about bunker placement, trees, artificial mounding, etc. Having worked on and played some of the most respected designs in the world, I believe I have a pretty good understanding of golf course architecture. The last thing I want is a turf research area!

Regardless, I believe every golf course architect should have a general understanding of turfgrass management. I've seen approaches designed to allow for low shots to be played into the green but there was little concern for surface drainage, therefore the conditions rarely allow for ground game options. It looks like a great golf course but it rarely plays the way the architect intended it to be.

I don't believe a golf course is great unless it's consistently maintained in the way the architect designed it to be. Imagine The Old Course without fast and firm playing surfaces.

Proper drainage seems like a no-brainer but I've seen basic drainage principals ignored more than once. I've also seen artificial mounding create drainage nightmares!

[Grant Saunders]

Thanks for your feedback guys.

The more I thought about this and greenkeeping in general today, I came to the conclusion that as an industry we have become far too focused on growing grass and forgotten what greenkeeping is really about.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Grant,

Yes in some instances the cart has got in front of the horse, and agronomy has ridden roughshod over design but there is a consideration to be made, and it is cost. If designs become so intricate that maintenance costs skyrocket, then those cost must be passed on to the people who play that course (members, green-fee players). Some wealthy clubs can afford this, but for others it would send them to the wall.

Astute Club owners and managers, know their market, know their costs and sit with architects and green keepers and work together to ensure the club is a viable business.

The overriding concern is that if golf becomes overly expensive if becomes inaccessible to the average person. If that happens at the grassroots level (excuse the pun), then the golf industry starts to shrink and we all lose.

You are on the right track though.

scott

PS-  and Harewood is a good example of how it could be done. (PS- I think they have only 13 bunkers on the course)

[Roger Wolfe]

The "blame game" is what kills me.

I think everyone (the board, superintendent, architect) all desire the the golf course to look as
good as it can be.  The architect recommends it, the board approves it, the superintendent
implements it.  Occasionally, even with everyone trying their best (architect providing vision, board
approving budget, superintendent agronomy) the desired "ideal" is simply not a reality.  It's at
this point where parties involved need to stop pointing fingers and find a solution.  The road you
travel reaching that point can be unbearable... but once you get there it's a wonderful thing.

[Dane Hawker]

Second: the fifth green certainly pushes the boundaries of what a triplex mower can achieve. As we talked about the other day, if the mower can follow the contours well on 3 different directions of cut yet on ther fourth it may struggle a bit, I have no problem with that at all. Also, during construction, I had talks with Colin about the possibility of hand mowing either the whole green or just the perimeter if the triplex was not going to cope. Colin, who was incredibly open minded (which has proven to be a big factor in the success of that project) had no problems with doing so if needed.

Hey Grant,

I visited Harewood last year. I'm not sure what green it was, but the kidney green with the slopes on it looked way too extreme. I'm guessing its the 5th green. Why did it have to be so severe? It had been cut by a triplex and there was some scalping. I have a photo somewhere at home. Did it really have to be like that? And why only one green on the course? Other than that there was some pretty awesome work. Sort of reminded me of the original Carrington greens.

Cheers
Dane (currently not enjoying 100mm of rain)

[Grant Saunders]

Hey Dane

It would be the 5th green you are thinking of.

The great thing about the Harewood redevelopment was everyone was working together and operating on the same wavelength. Right from the start, an overall goal or picture was formulated that was to influence all the decision making for the project. For example, grass selection was primarily based on creating not only a low input course but intended green contours and slopes. With the design calling for bold shapes care had to be taken that greens wont become too fast. Browntop was selected with the desired long term speed of approx 9 feet being the goal. With the input of all those involved the conclusion was reached that a solid mowing and rolling program would see these speeds achievable without creating a workload exceeding the clubs resources. With this target green speed, it enabled design to push (by NZ standards) some boundaries without the fear of speeds compromising playability.

As Don talked about, challenges like the 5th green are fine as long as allowances are made for its maintenance. By minimising the number of bunkers through the course using low input species, time saved in those areas is available to then reinvest into maintaining features that are more labour intensive. Certainly, you wouldnt want 18 greens like that one, but the others contain plenty of movement as well.

Hopefully Scott can chime in with a better account of the design philosophy, but essentially it is a green created to be somewhat unique and challenging but all sorts of fun at the same time. It is a hole best viewed as a golfer and not as a greenkeeper.

I havent seen it scalped yet, and I have seen it a number of  times. If it does, it may be more pronounced on one direction. I feel that minor scalping or misses have fairly minimal impact on the golf ball though and are acceptable to a degree in the pursuit of interesting golf.

Cheers

Grant (11mm down here today. Pretty heavy for these parts)

Here is a photo of the 5th green:

[Scott Macpherson]

Grant,

That's a good photo of the 5th green. Thanks for posting it.

For those who don't know the hole, it is a short par 4 and the line of attack is from the left. This photo is taken from the right side of the green. I've only played the hole twice, and once the flag was in that central position. It was a lot of fun, and puts a premium on hitting your tee shot to the left side of the fairway so you can play into the pocket. As it turned out I was 5 yards to long and had to putt back down the hill to the hole. I could putt straight at the hole though. I had to putt sideways – into the side of the swale and let the contours funnel the ball down to the hole.

This green is at one end of the spectrum – the more extreme end – but I don't consider it an extreme green. We wanted the course to have a similar theme, but a range of putting tests. Some easier, some more testing, all fun. Having returned for the official course opening on Feb 25th , 2012, I think (and I like to think I can be reasonably objective) we gave the Club something different, something interesting, and something that will aid the development of their business going forward.

Hope you can get back and play it again guys.

scott

[Tom_Doak]

The great thing about the Harewood redevelopment was everyone was working together and operating on the same wavelength. Right from the start, an overall goal or picture was formulated that was to influence all the decision making for the project. For example, grass selection was primarily based on creating not only a low input course but intended green contours and slopes. With the design calling for bold shapes care had to be taken that greens wont become too fast. Browntop was selected with the desired long term speed of approx 9 feet being the goal. With the input of all those involved the conclusion was reached that a solid mowing and rolling program would see these speeds achievable without creating a workload exceeding the clubs resources. With this target green speed, it enabled design to push (by NZ standards) some boundaries without the fear of speeds compromising playability.

Grant:

That sounds like the set of calculations I went through when building High Pointe.  But, most of those calculations went out the window when customers demanded bentgrass greens, and management agreed.

I hope it works out better for you!   

[Dane Hawker]

Hey Grant,

Browntop is a great choice and I'm sure if wanted it can be sped up easily over 9ft.

I'm on a browntop crusade at the moment. I currently looking at options of turning our pure american ryegrass fairways into browntop 

The cost of maintaining the fertility and regular poa control is a drain on resources and we will run out of water if we have a dry summer.

There just isn't the money these days floating around in the golf industry. Our players are getting older. We may be better off at looking at low input grasses and low maintenance designs and leave it the big resorts have the Augusta look

Do we need 8 bunkers on every hole? Are we mowing and watering too much? can we get away with fescue wastelands?

[Scott Macpherson]

Dane,

What course are you at? What do you do there?

scott

[Dane Hawker]

Hi Scott,

I'm Course Superintendent at North Shore Golf Club in Auckland. We have 27 holes with about 1400 members.

Really looking forward to seeing the finished project at Royal Wellington. From what I've seen in the photos it looks awesome!

I was down in Queenstown late last year on a turf study. We had a walk around at Millbrook with Greg over the new 9 holes. Pretty cool!

[Scott Macpherson]

HI Dane,

Welcome to GCA.

I haven't played North Shore (and if I have, it must have been a long time ago because I can't recall it.) My brother lives up your way though, so maybe next time I'm over seeing him I'll stick my nose in. You'd be welcome to come and see Royal Wellington anytime too.

Are your heading to PBGC for the GCA event soon?

scott

[Dane Hawker]

Yeah call in for a game any time, preferable not winter 

 I will have to make a visit when Royal Welly is finished. I also was to play PBGC as the improvements by Leo and crew look awesome. Wont be able to make the GCA event as Ive just been on a boys weekend to Kinloch and Wairakei. Hope to get back to Kidnappers this winter as I haven't been there for a while. I getting married in two weeks in Queenstown so should be able to find a course to play in the area 

Back to browntop
The PGA is at the Hills next week, I wonder what sort of green speeds they will be running.

[Aaron McMaster]

Just bumping this topic as a couple of years have past and the downturn of the economy and golf course industry may have tipped the scales somewhat.

I would be curious to know if architects are making concessions in their work as a reflection of the current state of golf and scaling back of resources being committed to maintenance.

For example, are you more inclined to be less insistant on certain features that you feel arent 100% esential to the design in effort to create a more manageable product ( bunkers being a good example)

Grant:

I don't know how to answer your questions, as the implication is that the process is much more adversarial than it really is.  Am I "making concessions" in my work?  Am I "less insistent" on my ideas?

Are we architects really too insistent?  I suppose that sometimes we are.  But there are two sides to that coin.  It drives me crazy to see superintendents spending as much on bunker maintenance as they do.  I've been guilty of building a lot of bunkers on some of my courses, but they were intended to be more rugged and less manicured than they are.  The fact that they are costing a lot to maintain is often a choice by the superintedent and the owner.

I do need to get back to building smaller greens, though.  We're sloppy about green size sometimes when we are building on sand and the cost of construction for a larger green is no different ... we have to think more about the fact that the cost of maintaining those greens is, in fact, much more.

Tom as a superintendent I agree bunker maintenance has gotten out of control.  However, there are excellent ways to design and build new bunkers that look rugged yet hold up to daily raking, play and most importantly the elements.  Unfortunately from our end of the business, most sup's don't have these bunkers.

I am interested in your comments on smaller greens.  I guess first I'd like to know what you consider smaller.  I believe that bigger greens in the overall scheme and long term, benefit a superintendent more than smaller greens.  It would seem smaller is cheaper but it would depend on that definition of small.  Anything under 4500sqft for bent/poa with more than 25,000 annual rounds is going to require intense maintenance to keep in nice shape.  Larger greens allow you to disperse that traffic much easier and cost less to keep in top shape with high rounds.

Guess I'm just saying it's not as easy as saying smaller greens cost less.  Amount of rounds, private vs public, type of turf..etc play a large part as well. 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom as a superintendent I agree bunker maintenance has gotten out of control.  However, there are excellent ways to design and build new bunkers that look rugged yet hold up to daily raking, play and most importantly the elements.  Unfortunately from our end of the business, most sup's don't have these bunkers.

I am interested in your comments on smaller greens.  I guess first I'd like to know what you consider smaller.  I believe that bigger greens in the overall scheme and long term, benefit a superintendent more than smaller greens.  It would seem smaller is cheaper but it would depend on that definition of small.  Anything under 4500sqft for bent/poa with more than 25,000 annual rounds is going to require intense maintenance to keep in nice shape.  Larger greens allow you to disperse that traffic much easier and cost less to keep in top shape with high rounds.

Guess I'm just saying it's not as easy as saying smaller greens cost less.  Amount of rounds, private vs public, type of turf..etc play a large part as well. 

Aaron:

Thanks for your thoughts.  If you would care to elaborate, at what point are the greens big enough that bigger just costs more?

I understand that 4500 square feet is pretty small for a golf course with a lot of traffic, although, it's nice to build a small green on occasion.  When I said our greens were getting too big, I was talking about greens that were getting over 8000 square feet.  Surely, that's a bit excessive.  Yet I don't want to just fall into a rut of building 6500 square foot greens because they are the "right" size.

[Aaron McMaster]

Aaron:

Thanks for your thoughts.  If you would care to elaborate, at what point are the greens big enough that bigger just costs more?

I understand that 4500 square feet is pretty small for a golf course with a lot of traffic, although, it's nice to build a small green on occasion.  When I said our greens were getting too big, I was talking about greens that were getting over 8000 square feet.  Surely, that's a bit excessive.  Yet I don't want to just fall into a rut of building 6500 square foot greens because they are the "right" size.

Tom I agree you don't want to cookie cutter just to meet a size requirement of as you say 6500sqft greens.  I would consider 8000 to be large but not too large to have a couple of that size per course.  Looking at it from a turf point of view you want cupable space so if I had a small green of say 4000sqft I'd like 70% cupable space but if it's 6500 you could lower that cupable space percentage and 8000 you could go even lower.

Cost's would vary from site to site since you might grow champion bermuda on one and bent on another plus what part of the country are they located can have huge impacts on fungicides, water, etc or  you take a place like Chicago Golf Club that has extremely large greens but since they have a lot of low maintained areas the overall course maintenance expense is not that high.  The fun part of large greens is the changes you can make to the daily set up for golfers.  A fun to course to play with some big greens but is not expensive to maintain is battle creek cc and the holes can vary greatly just by flagstick locations.

For sake of answering your original question, I think when you start exceeding 3 acres of greens the expense out weighs the benefits.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Aaron,

I'm interested in your first post. What type of bunkers are you referring too that hold up well to daily maintenance, the weather etc. Can you post a photo, and/or describe them.

Scott

[Tom_Doak]

Aaron:

Thanks.  The numbers you gave were pretty standard ones, put in that context.  You probably wouldn't like Old Macdonald and its six acres of greens!

I have heard good things about the greens at Battle Creek before, but have never seen it.  A shame, since it's only three hours from my house.  Maybe I'll get down there this spring before I have to start traveling in earnest.