A lesson in maintenance

[Ian Larson]

1. If golf course superintendents and greens chairmen should have the freedom to alter the original intent of the architect starting with how the bunkers play and look, where does that freedom end? More damage has been done to golf courses by both parties and I think its ridiculous to try and say they should have that freedom to do as they please without a professional signing off on it. Sure, most supers on Golf Club Atlas have an understanding of golf course architecture and can do something like this without much disaster. But lets take the Golf Club Atlas ideals blinders off for at least a second and think about the entire industry. Should the golf course superintendent industry have the freedom to do as they please with the architects original intent?

2. How in the world could any of you think that this is just how a golf course architect should design all of his bunkers? And even more so what golf course architect has only 1 way that he designs his bunkers? If every golf course architect thought that all of his fairway bunkers should look like and play like these bunkers on any site with any topography....golf courses would be very predictable and monotonous. And on top of the golf course architects designing all of their bunkers like this golf course superintendents and greens chairmen should also go out and take the fairway mower to all the lips of their fairway bunkers on existing courses? There needs to be a checks and balances system within the industry that keeps a freedom like this regulated and prevents golf course superintendents and greens chairmen doing whatever they want. And that system needs to start with golf course architects.

3. Maintenance has always followed design, whether it was designed by mother nature or a human. The problem I have with all of this is that the thread is titled "A LESSON IN MAINTENANCE". Ok....so if the style of bunkers in the pictures are A LESSON IN MAINTENANCE then all of the supers out there reading this should be learning a lesson here that they should go out and scalp down all of the grass they have between the fairways and bunkers. They should just go do it because thats how guys on Golf Club Atlas feel it should play and look like. They should go out and do it regardless of what the architect designed it to look and play like.

4. Jordans post to start this thread asked "why arent more bunkers maintained like these, with the fairway running straight into them?" And uses a picture from Merion to illustrate that. Well....does that picture of Merion just look like that edge is accomplished by the natural evolution of maintenance practices? Hell no, not to me. That looks completely designed and completely constructed to me. Is the long grass the same type of grass as the fairway grass...just mowed down? I dont know for sure but I would have to say absolutely not. And I do think its kinda ironic that a pic of Merion is used where that look looks more constructed to me than the courses in the Australian Sandbelt.......and Merion is infamous for having their fairway bunkers completely landlocked by lush rough grass.

5. My favorite bunkering is the bunkering found on the Australian sandbelt courses. I love this look and I love how they play. And I, myself am a big proponent of a golf course superintendent MAINTAINING their fairway edges and not letting them turn into aircraft carrier decks flanked by bunkers. I think in general a fairway line should always open up to a fairway bunker with the line of play and not just be a straight line passing by it. But do I think every fairway bunker on a course should have short grass up to every fairway facing lip? No way. Too predictable and prescribed for me. And I think its an absolute tragedy to make the normal industry protocol about allowing a superintendent to just decide to go out and do something like this. I think that sets a bad example for the rest of the industry and can do more harm than good to alot of golf courses by instigating more bad habits by the supers and greens chairmen.


So I stand by my opinion that more bunkers are not maintained like this because they are not designed like this. Maintenance is a function of the form designed by the architect. The art and the strategic integrity of a golf course should only be MAINTAINED by the super....not altered. And this bunker style IS NOT a lesson in maintenance. Its a lesson in design.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ive been a Super and an architect. As an architect you do what you and hand it over, I doubt its possible to have any real control on what happens from then on, and if you ask for contract clauses with penalty you probably wont get the job in the first place.

So...I design this where I particuarly do not want a bunker, perhaps a walk off area to the next tee... a few years later I tune in to googe earth and they have inserted one.. I don't like it but what can I do, even worse some clever chap years later will say Im a jerk for blocking off the route to the next tee!

My point is golf courses evolve and the Supers will cut as they think best not as what that archie wanted..its just what happens.

Back to the thread, I don't think its lots of $$$ to cut right up to the edge, but it does depend on what equipment you use to maintain your fairways, the bigger the mower the more difficult

[Ryan Farrow]

Kyle, another way to think of it is like this.


Your an architect, you went through the grassing lines on every hole and got them exactly how you wanted them, or pretty close. Lets just say, your the man, and you thought about how every grass line looked and played and you think you nailed it, they are perfect. They look great and they play exactly how you wanted them.

Then 5 years from now a super or greens committee started adjusting the lines, only thinking about X instead of making a collective decision that was based on x,y,z....

Now who do you think is more qualified to make that x,y,z, decision?

And that might be good question, if the architect is incompetent, but I know for a fact the greens committee would be the least qualified 


Kyle, we have a project going on right now where everything is basically fairway cut to start. And sometimes it is going to stay that way. But it is all Paspalum, all adjustable. Sometimes we will go in before grassing and mark out areas of native grass or some kind of low maint. area. Then the next round will be either marking out the fairways corridors or marking out the rough corridors, however you want to interpret that. But the great thing the is the flexibility to adjust and being able to see everything established as fairway cut first.

[Roger Wolfe]

Ive been a Super and an architect. As an architect you do what you and hand it over, I doubt its possible to have any real control on what happens from then on, and if you ask for contract clauses with penalty you probably wont get the job in the first place.

So...I design this where I particuarly do not want a bunker, perhaps a walk off area to the next tee... a few years later I tune in to googe earth and they have inserted one.. I don't like it but what can I do, even worse some clever chap years later will say Im a jerk for blocking off the route to the next tee!

My point is golf courses evolve and the Supers will cut as they think best not as what that archie wanted..its just what happens.

Back to the thread, I don't think its lots of $$$ to cut right up to the edge, but it does depend on what equipment you use to maintain your fairways, the bigger the mower the more difficult

We pay our architect an very reasonable annual consulting fee.  He comes in the Spring and Fall and, through discussion with the superintendent, writes a summary of his visit and includes any changes he thinks are necessary.  He makes general observations on appearance and conditioning.  He then makes specific recommendations.  Some topics include (he is an ex-superintendent) green edges and cleanup passes, tee condition, bunker "doming," goat paths created by maintenance workers raking from outside the bunkers, fairway mowing patterns, tree removal/trimming, fescue areas.  It prevents "x,y,z syndrome" as put forth by Ryan AND is a great opportunity for the architect to sell some additional projects.  It's worked out great for us so far.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Roger, great idea I wish clubs would do this even on a 4 yearly basis, but its very rare for clubs to have the original architect engaged in the UK.

[Tim Nugent]

Kudos to Ian for at least "trying". But this doesn't really address the bunker edge condition of the thread. And Ian, I suggest take it off your resume' if it (as it sounds) is no longer the course you designed.  And notify the owners of your intentions...might get them to act if they know how strongly you feel about it.

Adrain, they don't need the 'original' - if he's dead or retired.  Find one that can work in the style of the original and you'll be at least better off than relying on those with alterior (sp?) motives.  Actually, I would bet that most arch's would do it for free (okay maybe you'ld have to buy lunch) if it were one of theirs, all you have to do is ask.

 As for the origins of fairway lines, here's my take.
I have old plans my dad did that only show greens, tee, bunkers and a limited amount of fairway grading.  Formal grassing lines seem to have become prominent with the advent of automatic irrigation systems.  These allowed Bent grass fairways.  So, the GCA had to show where to plant the Bent and where to plant the Bluegrass rough.  Otherwise, contractors wouldn't know how much to bid/order.  Fairway widths were a factor of how far a sprinkler could throw.  As earlier systems were a single row down the middle, spaced 1 radius apart, there were 3 different watering areas. 1) between the sprinklers - this area received double water, 2)the area to the side of the sprinkler which received single coverage, and 3) the triangular area or "scallop" at the edge of the fairway, out side the arcs of the sprinklers.  Of course the scallops couldn't support Bent, so the old, straight fairway edges (remember they mowed with gang mowers back then) become surpintine to better match the irrigation patterns.  Roughs weren't that big of a deal because without irrigation they were typically thin.  If it rained, they thickened up.  
Double row systems were developed to combat the "necking"of the fairway and allow wider fairways.  While this pushed the scallop out into the rough, now roughs were getting about 30'  of irrigation.  Triple row systems of today eliminate the patchy nature of dbl row roughs by irrigating them completely.

Southern courses, being all Bermuda, could just mow fairway lines whereever they pleased and did so to emmulate the northern courses.  Also, this all is happening simultaneously with a premium being placed on tee shots being hit straight (much harder with wooded drivers than with medals.  Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't ANGC originally mowed all one height?  But within the hole, there were definate 'A' positions one wanted to be in.

As for the thread, from an Acrh's point of view, I love the way this looks AND plays!.  However, we don't do it much, if at all, because 1) it goes agianst the preceived Norm, 2) supers are resistent because they don't know what the outcome will be and like to be able to sleep at night, 3) members want something that looks like it does 'down the street', 4) Arch's are afraid of being criticized for going outside the box, 5) members don't want to see their balls rolling into bunkers
 and want the strip of rough to act as velcro.

Once in a great while we may get an enlighten owner that is willing to push the envelop, like we got with Mike Kieser when we did his first coourse, the Dunes Club.  He didn't want any bluegrass so everything was either Bent or Fescue.  We replaced what would be rough with Bent which made the fairways nice and wide but there are places wherebejust being in the fairway doesn't guarantee  a clean shot to the green. This meant all the areas around the greens were Bent, right up to the sand (whether a formal bunker or informal waste).  Some bunkers got fescue between the fairway and the sand, others did not.

What I like about te way this plays is it reminds me of of English courses that have bunkers at the end of long swale that can suck a ball in from far away.  On our heavy clay soils, this would cause rain water to collect in the bunk and turn into a pool.  Howevr, this can now be mitigated with drainage.

Another benfit of this close-crop edge is that it allows more of the bunker to be visable.  I am from the "if a hazard is there, I want to know it is, so I can play accordingly" school but don't necessarily favor big, high flashes to accomplish this.  Believe me when I tell you 3" of bluegrass in front of a bunker can hide nearly a foot of sand on the back face (more if playing uphill, less if downhill). And this edge allows for lower faces and less deep "front-to-back" area to accomplish what I am trying to do with that bunker.

Just like "Hairy Edges, Chunked edges, and the MacKenzie look, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lot moreof this in the future.

PS, liked the Tiger Woods Design look of the sketch, anyone know who's doing the design work there?

[Niall C]

Roger, great idea I wish clubs would do this even on a 4 yearly basis, but its very rare for clubs to have the original architect engaged in the UK.

maybe because they would have to have a seance to get in touch with the original architect 

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle, another way to think of it is like this.


Your an architect, you went through the grassing lines on every hole and got them exactly how you wanted them, or pretty close. Lets just say, your the man, and you thought about how every grass line looked and played and you think you nailed it, they are perfect. They look great and they play exactly how you wanted them.

Then 5 years from now a super or greens committee started adjusting the lines, only thinking about X instead of making a collective decision that was based on x,y,z....

Now who do you think is more qualified to make that x,y,z, decision?

And that might be good question, if the architect is incompetent, but I know for a fact the greens committee would be the least qualified 


Kyle, we have a project going on right now where everything is basically fairway cut to start. And sometimes it is going to stay that way. But it is all Paspalum, all adjustable. Sometimes we will go in before grassing and mark out areas of native grass or some kind of low maint. area. Then the next round will be either marking out the fairways corridors or marking out the rough corridors, however you want to interpret that. But the great thing the is the flexibility to adjust and being able to see everything established as fairway cut first.

Ryan,

I don't buy the axiom that the architect's work is to be taken in such a sanctimonious manner, nor your slippery slope argument. If they are so perfect, why is the green committee moving them?

You can say the architect considered x, y, and z but what if only x is relevant?

Which would you say is the greater evil, narrowing or widening?

Do architects consider rough areas as they do creeks, ponds, bunkers and other hazards or do they consider the fairway the corridor? Perhaps thinking along the lines of the former instead of the latter would help you understand where I'm coming from.

[Jake Straub]

i think that Ian, Tim and Ryan all nailed it when they discussed turf types.  When you think of the older golf courses like a Merion, back in the day they had a Heinz 57 mix of turfgrasses and depending where they were on the course they were maintained at slightly different heights but the distinction to the eye was no where near as evident as it is now.  As soon as bentgrass became the cool season grass of choice on fairways and bluegrass and tall fescue became the rough grass of choice then the eye instantly picks up on the color distinction and I think visually you see these grass fairway contour lines everywhere.  It is  a shame that ryegrass is so dam expensive to maintain in certain parts of the country because this could be a cool season alternative to the bent/blue turf used today and give you more of the sandbelt feel that Ian touched on in his comments.  Like Tim and Ian both have said in earlier posts when you are wall to wall in the same variety of grasses it offers you the luxury of implementing more of this rolled edge look without such a artificial look.

[Lyne Morrison]

Jordan – one part of the problem is eremikophobia - in any case I also prefer to see the fairway cut leading to the bunker.

My feeling is that while the superintendent and greens committee believe they are making well intended choices with regards course presentation they are also often influenced by the opinion of members and dependent upon experience may not always fully appreciate how these choices affect the bigger picture.

Rough surrounds to bunkers provide a level of presentation with appeal to some and also ease maintenance requirements which may be attractive dependent upon the focus of the business. I’ve also heard of a maintenance theory where it was felt that members preferred balls to be caught before they entered the bunkers -- hence the greens chairman and super were doing the members a *favour* by having the longer surrounds. Golfers are a funny lot and I see many with a fear of sand who are grateful for whatever measure is in place to lessen the possibility of their ball finding a bunker - even if provided a more difficult recovery out of heavy rough..

At the same time I sense one part of this discussion that isn’t well understood is that this rough may detract from the intended role of a hazard and may contribute to a playing field that is overly narrow and somewhat penal.  Awkward stances and tricky recoveries can also occur by virtue of balls being caught up on bunker edges.

This type of presentation catches my attention most when the rough collar around greenside bunkers narrows the entry to a green to a point where the right of passage for the majority of golfers is negatively impacted. In some circumstances the approach into a green can effectively become a cross hazard through the combination of sand and associated rough surrounds. To me this is influencing design intent – it also typically impacts the majority in an unhelpful manner by reducing playing options.

Cheers - Lyne

[Bill_McBride]

Every time there's a thread on fairway bunkers in the rough, I post this pictureof Royal Liverpool  that I think clearly illustrates the ideal.  These bunkers collect tee shots that are just slightly off line. They are true hazards.  I think these are mowed on the clean up pass down the fairway edge.  Isn't this what every course should aspire to?

[Eric Morrison]

FWIW, from a maintenance perspective, it is associated with dollars and it is not only course specific, but bunker specific. I have tried to enlarge some fairway contours to spill into bunkers over the years. We have 100 bunkers on our course, and if I enlarged fairways to what they looked like in aerials from the 30's, I would increase fairway acreage by ~35% or more. Back then, the heights were much higher and required limited inputs (pesticide and fert) and no supplemental irrigation. If I enlarged by 35%, mowing times would increase (I can't stay ahead of play now), input $$ would increase, water bill could increase, aerification of fairways increases, etc. So, bunkers that are close to my fairway lines I have mowed closer to, and ones further away remain as they are. I have tried to assess design intent (what I think it was anyway), playability, and budget, then make contour line changes that fit accordingly.

[Sean_A]

Every time there's a thread on fairway bunkers in the rough, I post this pictureof Royal Liverpool  that I think clearly illustrates the ideal.  These bunkers collect tee shots that are just slightly off line. They are true hazards.  I think these are mowed on the clean up pass down the fairway edge.  Isn't this what every course should aspire to?

Ace

Nearly all links have this type of presentation with slightly longer grass feeding into bunkers.  The key to this presentation is firm ground.  The grass can be a bit longer than fairway cut and balls will still end up in nthe bunkers. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Every time there's a thread on fairway bunkers in the rough, I post this pictureof Royal Liverpool  that I think clearly illustrates the ideal.  These bunkers collect tee shots that are just slightly off line. They are true hazards.  I think these are mowed on the clean up pass down the fairway edge.  Isn't this what every course should aspire to?

Ace

Nearly all links have this type of presentation with slightly longer grass feeding into bunkers.  The key to this presentation is firm ground.  The grass can be a bit longer than fairway cut and balls will still end up in nthe bunkers. 

Ciao

Sean, as you'll note in this photo, it's not much above fairway cut at Hoylake, and I remember similar look at Muirfield and inside the fairway bunkers on the Old Course at St Andrews. 

The "benefit" beyond looks is that it makes those bunkers play about double their actual size!

[Michael Rossi]

In an effort to get back to the original questions

Why aren't more bunkers maintained like these, with the fairways running straight into them?
The archie of other course did not design them like that.
Not coincidentally, these are perhaps two of the best courses in the country.
Perhaps that is why these courses are held in such high regard.
What can other courses learn from maintenance practices such as this?
How to do it, what it costs, when doing a master plan get the GCA to explore the option.
Why aren't more fairway bunkers maintained like this?
Same answer as before they have not been designed to be maintained like in the photos.

[Tim Nugent]

Every time there's a thread on fairway bunkers in the rough, I post this pictureof Royal Liverpool  that I think clearly illustrates the ideal.  These bunkers collect tee shots that are just slightly off line. They are true hazards.  I think these are mowed on the clean up pass down the fairway edge.  Isn't this what every course should aspire to?

Ace

Nearly all links have this type of presentation with slightly longer grass feeding into bunkers.  The key to this presentation is firm ground.  The grass can be a bit longer than fairway cut and balls will still end up in the bunkers. 

Ciao

Sean, as you'll note in this photo, it's not much above fairway cut at Hoylake, and I remember similar look at Muirfield and inside the fairway bunkers on the Old Course at St Andrews. 

The "benefit" beyond looks is that it makes those bunkers play about double their actual size!

Bill, thanks for the observation about the fact that this presentation makes the bunker PLAY about twice its size.  Hence, emplying this  in new designs can effectively lower the bunker construction and maintenance costs. And for the super that is worried about more mowing, etc.  I have been tasked many times to widen fairways but don't add any more fairway area.  How many times hav you seen a par 3 with and approach fairway AND fronting bunkers.  I'm sure you members would rather lose that never used turf and have a fairway 10 yds wider.  A good reason to bring in a GC Arch is he looks at the course with fresh eyes.

Also,  I have to ask him, "why aren't you aerifying between the bunker and the fairway?"  These are some of the most compacted areas on a course due to the fact that carts are funneled into these narrow areas.

Some other things to ponder: Since this appears to be a cool season issue (with war season, like Bermuda, it's just a matter of mowing) Would you get the same effect out of, say, low-mow Bluegrass cut at the same 1/2" as a Bent fairway?  Or perhaps a blend of creeping fine fescue and Colonial Bent? Or would the do you need the "look" to be homogenious?

Also, let's not bring Revetted bunkers into this conversation, since their make-up and maintenance is drastically different.  IE note in the pictures how these were just rebuilt (note the new sod line around the top?). Plus what club in the States would put up with the those dead sploches of turf around their bunkers?

Being a decendant of the RB Harris tree, remember he placed his bunkers 1 gang mower width from the greens and skylined the sand so the super could mow by hanging a reel over the edge  - thus eliminating hand mowing. The same can be done with modern fairway and triplex mowers.

[Jake Straub]

Some other things to ponder: Since this appears to be a cool season issue (with war season, like Bermuda, it's just a matter of mowing) Would you get the same effect out of, say, low-mow Bluegrass cut at the same 1/2" as a Bent fairway?  Or perhaps a blend of creeping fine fescue and Colonial Bent? Or would the do you need the "look" to be homogenious?

Tim

I think I understand where you are trying to go with these comments unfortunately I think the addition of low mow blue would not necessarily be beneficial in this case.  If you were using the low mow as a fairway border you would end up thinning out the turf with the use of certain growth regulators.  I like the creeping fine fescue and colonial bent idea that would allow you a more eye pleasing look.

Personally I am a fan of a homogeneous look of turfgrass.  I think over the years we have gotten away from that and in doing so you end up with some bunker looks that are confusing, from a turf perspective, at best.

[Michael Rossi]

Tim

I have maintained both styles of bunker with the fairway and green cut up to the lip of the bunker at a course in Ontario Canada call Eagles Nest.

The turf types are a mixture of fine fescue, colonial and velvet bents in low mow surfaces and fescue/blue mix in the roughs and yes the same affect can be achieved.

Was the maintenance cost any more expensive, difficult to say, we were there mowing the area. Getting the operator to mow up to the edge was difficult and plenty of times throughout the season the mower found the sand. This did add an extra sharpening and tune up by the mechanic and would shake up the operator. We mowed these areas with walkers around greens in fairways ride on equipment was used, and sometimes these mowers found the sand also.

I will post some photos later.

[Sean_A]

Every time there's a thread on fairway bunkers in the rough, I post this pictureof Royal Liverpool  that I think clearly illustrates the ideal.  These bunkers collect tee shots that are just slightly off line. They are true hazards.  I think these are mowed on the clean up pass down the fairway edge.  Isn't this what every course should aspire to?

Ace

Nearly all links have this type of presentation with slightly longer grass feeding into bunkers.  The key to this presentation is firm ground.  The grass can be a bit longer than fairway cut and balls will still end up in nthe bunkers.  

Ciao

Sean, as you'll note in this photo, it's not much above fairway cut at Hoylake, and I remember similar look at Muirfield and inside the fairway bunkers on the Old Course at St Andrews.  

The "benefit" beyond looks is that it makes those bunkers play about double their actual size!

Ace

Yes, depending on fairway contours, these sorts of bunkers can play much larger than double their size or just their size (Carnoustie beong a great example of this).  Nobody talks about it, but enlarging the actual size is really all about the ground game when players try to slip a drive or approach past these sorts of bunkers.  For the flat bellies, they still think in terms of carry and for the most part, these sort of bunkers really only play their actual size for these guys.  There is no getting around it.  With the new equipment, the ball can be carried much further thus clubs add bunkers or move them to accommodate flat bellies.  I think its a lot easier to pull this off reasonably well on links than on parkland courses.  

I still can't by money being the issue for not having fairways flow into bunkers because many bunkers can be eliminated if done so because of their effective size - thus sort of creating a sort of no extra cost.  Of course, those clubs aspiring to championship status wouldn't ever consider this, but it is very viable for run of the mill clubs, many of which have very good courses.  Again, any sort of gathering bunker effect is wholly dependent on firm conditions so it isn't worth contemplating gathering bunkers.

Ciao  

[Craig Sweet]

Maybe it's a convenient excuse, but I think its all about how much the membership howls....

[Michael Rossi]

Tim

I have maintained both styles of bunker with the fairway and green cut up to the lip of the bunker at a course in Ontario Canada call Eagles Nest.

The turf types are a mixture of fine fescue, colonial and velvet bents in low mow surfaces and fescue/blue mix in the roughs and yes the same affect can be achieved.

Was the maintenance cost any more expensive, difficult to say, we were there mowing the area. Getting the operator to mow up to the edge was difficult and plenty of times throughout the season the mower found the sand. This did add an extra sharpening and tune up by the mechanic and would shake up the operator. We mowed these areas with walkers around greens in fairways ride on equipment was used, and sometimes these mowers found the sand also.

I will post some photos later.

As promised here are the photos. unfortunately we were unable to maintain the bunker up to green side on hole 1 due to the sand migration and mower traffic, so it was moved back approximately 6 feet and maintained at approach hoc .300". As stated earlier it is tough to get the last little bit of turf with the mower, however whether it is maintained at rough height or anything lower a line trimmer will have to go there anyway so no change in cost for labour.

[Tim Nugent]

Mike R. thanks, the pics are worth a thousand words.  It looks like (Doug C?) could have given a little straighter edge if walk mowing was prescribed.  Looks like you've done that with the sod job. 
If you would be so kind, a couple more questions:
*The collar looks a bit stressed, do you think the underlying soil was part of the problem? 
*Sand migration is an issue, do you have to blow it away?  Would deeper bunkers help?
*Did you ever try a triplex for the last pass to let the reel hang over?  I wouldn't want to try alll that zig-zagging with a walker.  I'd definatelyend up in the bunker and on my arse. And we all know - never piss-off the mechanic

[Jordan Wall]

In an effort to get back to the original questions

Why aren't more bunkers maintained like these, with the fairways running straight into them?
The archie of other course did not design them like that.

How is the architect supposed to design it?  They place the bunkers, it it the Super's job to maintain it correctly, no!?  And why would an architect NOT want it maintained like that?

Not coincidentally, these are perhaps two of the best courses in the country.
Perhaps that is why these courses are held in such high regard.

Also why other courses should learn from these courses, and in turn practice such a maintenance meld.

What can other courses learn from maintenance practices such as this?
How to do it, what it costs, when doing a master plan get the GCA to explore the option.

I disagree.  I believe it to be the Super's job to maintain the course as ideal as possible, not the gca's.  An ideal maintenance would only make the course and architect look better, so the gca should want it to happen anyways.

Why aren't more fairway bunkers maintained like this?
Same answer as before they have not been designed to be maintained like in the photos.

Again, it is the super's job to maintain the course properly.  The architect designs the course, the Super maintains it correctly.  This maintenance practice is held to the Super alone.

Food for thought.

Why don't more members try to have their courses maintained like this?

Wouldn't a member vote solidify the practice of mowing fairway straight into bunkers, particularly fairway bunkers?

[Michael Rossi]

Jordan

I will try to respond to you statements.

The GCA should design it as per his clients desires. Why would the GCA not want it maintained like that would depend on his design intent or strategy for the hole. Ask the GCA.


What can other courses learn from maintenance practices such as this?
How to do it, what it costs, when doing a master plan get the GCA to explore the option.

I disagree.  I believe it to be the Super's job to maintain the course as ideal as possible, not the gca's.  An ideal maintenance would only make the course and architect look better, so the gca should want it to happen anyways.

I don't understand your disagreement with some options I suggest that people could learn from. I agree the super should maintain the property as best as possible with the resources available and within the direction of the "bosses" and with the design intent because the design dictates the maintenance requirements. This look is attractive to some but not all, with me as I have stated earlier I like it.

The course design dictates the maintenance requirements and the super must allocate his available resources accordingly to accomplish the best quality possible.

 If a fairway is laid out with rough lines running between the bunker and fairway are you suggesting that this area gets scalped down on any course that has it, despite the turf types or what resources they have available or what the original GCA set out to accomplish, just because we think it looks and plays better?

EDIT - I bet if it was put to a members vote at say Oakmont or Pine Valley it would not move forward. Although at Oakmont the fairway cut almost flows into the bunker, first cut of rough is very close. 

[Craig Sweet]

Jordan...members do not like bunkers....they do not like hitting into them, nor do they enjoy hitting out of them. They want them maintained in a pristine state....anything that increases the chance that their ball will end up in one of these pristine bunkers they will be against...MOST golfers do not want to be challenged...they want to have fun, make a bet or two with their buddies, get some fresh air away from the house and wife.