A lesson in maintenance

[Jordan Wall]

Why aren't more bunkers maintained like these, with the fairwaysrunning straight into them?

Not coincidentally, these are perhaps two of the best courses in the country.

What can other courses learn from maintenance practices such as this?

Why aren't more fairway bunkers maintained like this?

This is absolutely wonderful.  I just love how anything not hit prefect gets into the bunkers, not just rough.  I don't like it when there is a lot of rough between a bunker and the fairway.  It almost negates the strategy of the bunker, because a ball won't even go in it unless it is flied in.  With the fairway running right into the bunkers, more poorly struck shots will wander into the hazard and suffer the appropriate penalty.  I just love this.

These pictures are of Chip's thread, btw, but I didn't want to thread jack.

[Sean_A]

Why aren't more bunkers maintained like these, with the fairwaysrunning straight into them?

Not coincidentally, these are perhaps two of the best courses in the country.

What can other courses learn from maintenance practices such as this?

Why aren't more fairway bunkers maintained like this?

This is absolutely wonderful.  I just love how anything not hit prefect gets into the bunkers, not just rough.  I don't like it when there is a lot of rough between a bunker and the fairway.  It almost negates the strategy of the bunker, because a ball won't even go in it unless it is flied in.  With the fairway running right into the bunkers, more poorly struck shots will wander into the hazard and suffer the appropriate penalty.  I just love this.

These pictures are of Chip's thread, btw, but I didn't want to thread jack.

Jordan

I too wonder why.  We hear of reasons, but I am not sure they are good reasons.  It sure would make an approach like this look much better and perhaps even entice the golfer to attempt the runner shot by eliminating the narrow entrance look.


Its ironic you have a pic of Merion because the overwhelming majority of its fairway bunkers are marooned in a sea of harsh rough.

Ciao

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

Jordan
 I agree they look great but I think the main reason you don't see it all that often is due to the extra maintenance involved, especially when it is fairway height. I worked at a course where the intermediate cut flowed into the bunkers and the remainder of the bunker bank was rough height. It resulted in an extra flymo crew, more labor, higher cost. Having the lower area at fairway/collar height as in your pictures add more work as it's difficult to have a small fine cut reel mower mow over an edge and also edges like these would potentially dry out faster requiring more hand watering. I guess the cost issue wouldn't be a big issue if there were only a few bunkers on a course but then it might look odd and inconsistant.

I'm sure there are more issues from a design/playability/maintenance standpoint that I'm not thinking about.

[Philippe Binette]

$$$

[Greg Chambers]

We mow fairway right into most of our bunkers.  It doesn't cost a penny more to do it this way.  You just hang the reel of the fairway mower right on the edge during the clean-up pass, and off you go.

[Ian Larson]

So if a course wasn't designed to have bunkers maintained like this, the super should take it upon himself to do it anyway? I don't think this is a lesson in maintenance at all rather a lesson in design.

[Adam Clayman]

No, It's about presentation.

[Ian Larson]

Can't argue with that. So let's swap "designed" with "presented". It's the chicken or the egg, if the bunkers weren't meant to be presented like this should they later be maintained to be by choice of the super? My initial thoughts are no and therefore not a lesson in maintenance but design. If it's designed to look and play like these then the maintenance show follow that.

[Michael Rossi]

I have to agree with Ian L.

The design dictates the maintenance requirements.

Grass lines are part of the design process; changing them is making design alterations that should only be done by the GCA or under the guidance of one, not arbitrarily by a super or green committee.
 

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

We mow fairway right into most of our bunkers.  It doesn't cost a penny more to do it this way.  You just hang the reel of the fairway mower right on the edge during the clean-up pass, and off you go.

I'm thinking more along the lines of collars and approaches where a riding more with its suspended reels is not possible. It also somewhat depends on how they are contoured in, on my example with the intermediate cut above a riding mower was not able to mow into the bunker due to the contours, so I guess it depends on the design and design intent.

[Kyle Harris]

Grass lines are part of the design process; changing them is making design alterations that should only be done by the GCA or under the guidance of one, not arbitrarily by a super or green committee.
 

Wow, that's quite a statement when one thinks about it.

I don't think I can even begin to agree with this.

Grass lines and what is cut at which height certainly affect the "play" of the golf course, but are they really a part of the design?

First off, heights of cut are extremely fluid things. They can be changed in both directions with relative ease. Why should the be fixed? Why not experiment with width?

What makes a GCA's input any less arbitrary than a Green committee or a Superintendent, both of whom are more likely to be intimately familiar with the playing characteristics of the golf course and the needs and desires of the members?

I am beginning to believe more and more that a good design will hold up to any width of fairway.

[Michael Rossi]

Grass lines are part of the design process; changing them is making design alterations that should only be done by the GCA or under the guidance of one, not arbitrarily by a super or green committee.
 

Wow, that's quite a statement when one thinks about it.

I don't think I can even begin to agree with this.

Grass lines and what is cut at which height certainly affect the "play" of the golf course, but are they really a part of the design?

First off, heights of cut are extremely fluid things. They can be changed in both directions with relative ease. Why should the be fixed? Why not experiment with width?

What makes a GCA's input any less arbitrary than a Green committee or a Superintendent, both of whom are more likely to be intimately familiar with the playing characteristics of the golf course and the needs and desires of the members?

I am beginning to believe more and more that a good design will hold up to any width of fairway.

Kyle

Why do the GCA's bother with grassing lines then? Just have them do a routing, pick some locations for greens, tees and bunkers and leave the rest up to the club. 

Throughout the history of many clubs changes by those apparently in the know have not worked out.

I do prefer the look of the bunkers in the photos and have maintained such styles, but not all courses would benefit from this style of maintenance around their bunkers. Moving fairway lines, collars or approach cut openings definitely changes the strategy of the hole and the design intent. 

And yes HOC's are fluid to a certain degree but not by inches. Look at the number of clubs restoring the original grass lines that have been changed over the years either do to budget cuts or otherwise. Yes usually at the desire of the membership, but under the guidance of a GCA.




 

[Kyle Harris]

Grass lines are part of the design process; changing them is making design alterations that should only be done by the GCA or under the guidance of one, not arbitrarily by a super or green committee.
 

Wow, that's quite a statement when one thinks about it.

I don't think I can even begin to agree with this.

Grass lines and what is cut at which height certainly affect the "play" of the golf course, but are they really a part of the design?

First off, heights of cut are extremely fluid things. They can be changed in both directions with relative ease. Why should the be fixed? Why not experiment with width?

What makes a GCA's input any less arbitrary than a Green committee or a Superintendent, both of whom are more likely to be intimately familiar with the playing characteristics of the golf course and the needs and desires of the members?

I am beginning to believe more and more that a good design will hold up to any width of fairway.

Kyle

Why do the GCA's bother with grassing lines then? Just have them do a routing, pick some locations for greens, tees and bunkers and leave the rest up to the club. 

Throughout the history of many clubs changes by those apparently in the know have not worked out.

I do prefer the look of the bunkers in the photos and have maintained such styles, but not all courses would benefit from this style of maintenance around their bunkers. Moving fairway lines, collars or approach cut openings definitely changes the strategy of the hole and the design intent. 

And yes HOC's are fluid to a certain degree but not by inches. Look at the number of clubs restoring the original grass lines that have been changed over the years either do to budget cuts or otherwise. Yes usually at the desire of the membership, but under the guidance of a GCA.

Mike,

This still doesn't really address my points. GCAs bother with grassing lines because someone has to start somewhere, no? Especially when it comes to designing modern irrigation...

What if I wanted to maintain my golf course with little to no definition between mowing heights? Have a wide swath of close mown grass tying together all the features and then a gentle blend outside the hole corridor? Keep it firm and let golf happen on top of it. It's certainly a presentation, but I don't necessarily believe it's a "design."

There are plenty of older examples of golf course plans without grassing lines or with extremely wide lines that included all the hazards.

What's wrong with the idea of scalping down a few areas late in the season and seeing how it plays the next?

[Ian Andrew]

Grass lines and what is cut at which height certainly affect the "play" of the golf course, but are they really a part of the design?

Kyle,

Absolutely!

I designed a course that relied on short grass around the greens for both interest and defense. The course has far fewer bunkers than most and the green contours all were designed to integrate and leak a ball into the short surrounds if players got too cute. Because it is a public course, I intentionally used fairway width for playability and placed the challenge at the greens to favor positional play.

The way the course plays, the recovery around the greens can be quite complicated and the players need the option of playing a bump and run or putt from the short grass areas. Because I have placed most of the difficulty at the greens, “I” need the ball to be able to run away from the green to accomplish what I intended.

The current super keeps them longer - for his own convenience - and the turf has also become very puffy. The result is players can no longer use the ground – which was my design intent - and the ball no longer runs away but tends to collect at the transition point out. I worked hard to create something a little more subtle, cheaper to maintain and fun to play than what is normal around here. It all died with the current maintenance of that course. Great golf architecture is as much about design as it is the maintenance that delivers the playing experience. One does not occur without the other.

I used to play the course with friends five or six times a year – now it makes me throw up in my mouth thinking about how $#itty its become.

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

You bring up another good point why not to move them, irrigation coverage.

By all means mow your course as you so choose, but moving the lines for the good or bad is an opinion.

My point is simply that the GCA puts a lot of thought into the grassing lines and often much of the golf hole strategy is associated with the grassing. Moving them would change it.  

[Kyle Harris]

Grass lines and what is cut at which height certainly affect the "play" of the golf course, but are they really a part of the design?

Kyle,

Absolutely!

I designed a course that relied on short grass around the greens for both interest and defense. The course has far fewer bunkers than most and the green contours all were designed to integrate and leak a ball into the short surrounds if players got too cute. Because it is a public course, I intentionally used fairway width for playability and placed the challenge at the greens to favor positional play.

The way the course plays, the recovery around the greens can be quite complicated and the players need the option of playing a bump and run or putt from the short grass areas. Because I have placed most of the difficulty at the greens, “I” need the ball to be able to run away from the green to accomplish what I intended.

The current super keeps them longer - for his own convenience - and the turf has also become very puffy. The result is players can no longer use the ground – which was my design intent - and the ball no longer runs away but tends to collect at the transition point out. I worked hard to create something a little more subtle, cheaper to maintain and fun to play than what is normal around here. It all died with the current maintenance of that course. Great golf architecture is as much about design as it is the maintenance that delivers the playing experience. One does not occur without the other.

I used to play the course with friends five or six times a year – now it makes me throw up in my mouth thinking about how $#itty its become.

Ian,

I actually look at things the other way around. I tend to think that the "rough" areas are designed and then everything else should be as closely mown as practical.

For me, that feels like it makes the most sense.

But even here, I think we see an example of maintenance not bringing out the most in the design. I look at your situation as the ground game still being available, it's just not a terribly good option because of the maintenance.

You arranged features that were developed for the ground game. The superintendent just isn't maintaining that option.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle

You bring up another good point why not to move them, irrigation coverage.

By all means mow your course as you so choose, but moving the lines for the good or bad is an opinion.

My point is simply that the GCA puts a lot of thought into the grassing lines and often much of the golf hole strategy is associated with the grassing. Moving them would change it.  

When do you think this thought into the Grassing Lines entered into architecture?

For example, William Flynn rarely tied his "fairway" lines together around the green - they just ended near it without connecting. How could that be interpreted?

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

You bring up another good point why not to move them, irrigation coverage.

By all means mow your course as you so choose, but moving the lines for the good or bad is an opinion.

My point is simply that the GCA puts a lot of thought into the grassing lines and often much of the golf hole strategy is associated with the grassing. Moving them would change it. 

When do you think this thought into the Grassing Lines entered into architecture?

For example, William Flynn rarely tied his "fairway" lines together around the green - they just ended near it without connecting. How could that be interpreted?

I have no idea when grass lines entered in golf architecture. Perhaps someone with the knowledge could chime in.

The Flynn drawing of Lancasters 13th has grassing lines.

http://golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/lancaster-country-club

[Kyle Harris]

Michael,

A few of Flynn's drawings do. Many don't however.

It may be of note to point out that Flynn began as superintendent. He was also pivotal in pioneering the use of bentgrass stolons to sprig tees, fairways and greens. Could these drawings be interpreted as hybrid design/construction plans?

[Adam Clayman]

My point is simply that the GCA puts a lot of thought into the grassing lines and often much of the golf hole strategy is associated with the grassing. Moving them would change it.  

I've had gcas admit that they drew rough lines in arbitrarily.

No rough lines seems like a more thoughtful decision on the part of the gca, as Ian eloquently points out.

[Mike Wagner]

I would be willing to bet the average member at the average private club doesn't get this concept, and they'll whine because they're in a bunker when they think they've hit a "good shot."

I'm with you, Jordan - I'd love to see more of it.

[Sean_A]

$$$

Philippe

If its a matter of money, why not build less yet more thoughtful and impacting bunkers which can then be maintained properly to increase their strategic merits?  Personally, I think we have gotten so far away from what the intentions of bunkers should be and the balance has tipped too far toward aesthetics/framing. 

Grass lines certainly can have a huge impact on how a course plays and this is why I think it is important to be thoughtful about where longer grass cuts deep into play and where it doesn't.  In other words, there has to be a reason to limit playing options. 

Kyle - I agree with you.  Courses can be great regardless of width.  However, playability for all always has to be in the back of most archies' heads.

Ciao

[JSPayne]

Let's get back to the original thread intent then.......if it's not a maintenance decision, then why would an architect CHOOSE to not have this design characteristic in the first place? We really need some archies to chime in here, because we're getting alot of speculation right now. I would have to place a big bet on the fact that there must be at least one active architect here who has designed and built bunkers that do have a "ring of rough" around their fairway bunkers.

FWIW.....I've started a thread like this before with the same question. I don't get why all fairways bunkers wouldn't be maintained/designed this way either. And also FWIW, I plan on taking it upon myself as a super to do exactly this to my fairway bunkers this year.....call it design more than maintenance if you want, it just means I've decided to delve into amateur GCA. Until someone can give me a better, legitimate reason I SHOULDN'T try to mow my fairways lines into the leading edges of fairway bunkers, I say why not?

[Adam Clayman]

That's right. It's a choice based on experience and knowledge of the sport.

[Michael Rossi]

I like the look of the open bunker with fairway bleeding and like the idea of width to provide angles.

What I suggest is that GCA's place thought into the grassing lines. If fairways are widened, a shot that would have been considered errant with the original grass lines (design) is no longer and strategy of the hole has changed.

For example see the link, it appears this guy put some thought into his lines.

http://web.tigerwoods.com/design/img/al_ruwaya_rendering_5_9.pdf