Are you willing to sacrifice architectural integrity for improved conditions?

[Andrew Buck]

I suspect the answer to this question changes as the architectural quality of a course improves, and most great courses likely don't have to make this choice, but which makes you happier?

One of the courses I regularly play had struggled with fairway conditions for years, losing the bentgrass/poa fairways almost annually.  A couple years ago they brought in a new superintendent that vastly improved the greens almost immediately, and has improved fairways as well.  Part of the improvement comes from the fact he took several of the generous fairways that where 50 yards wide in places, and tightened them by 10 - 15 paces in areas of width, allowing his chemical budget to provide the care they need. 

It's clear the membership is ecstatic with the playing conditions and is more than willing to trade some of the architectural integrity (as width was used in angles of approach as well) for vastly improved conditions.  If I'm being honest, while I miss a few of the areas that have been sacrificed, and don't particularly like the straight fairway mowing patterns, I do leave the course happier playing on improved conditions than I did when the architectural integrity was maintained, but conditions were not. 

Which would you prefer, and can you think of other examples of this trade-off.  I guess the obvious example is green speeds vs. contours.

[Paul Gray]

Absolutely not.

The last thing the game needs is an increasing emphasis on Augusta type conditioning. It's exactly this which lies at the heart of the apparent crisis currently facing the game.

[Andrew Buck]

Absolutely not.

The last thing the game needs is an increasing emphasis on Augusta type conditioning. It's exactly this which lies at the heart of the apparent crisis currently facing the game.

In this case there is no danger of Augusta type conditioning, but rather grass vs. dirt/weeds.

[Paul Gray]

I see your point. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Nope.  But good conditions are paramount to achieving the architect's vision. 

[RJ_Daley]

In general, I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice good architecture for superior conditions, all the time.  But, part of good design should promote or make possible decent conditions.  If slopes and drainage are not designed to allow good turf mainteance, then that is not very good design, and thus such design should be reworked.

But, great design can't always overcome seasonal and weather event pressure.  Good architecture shouldn't be necessarily sacrificed for the seasonally wet or dry, or hot or cold extremes that are to be expected in various regional climates.  So long as the design takes into account these seasonal extremes, but allow the superintendent to present the maintenance meld that allows great architecture to shine most of the expected seasons, then design on noteworthy courses shouldn't be discarded capriciously.  iMHO.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andrew,

If the members are ecstatic with the results, then the new Super should ask to have his budget increased so that the members can enjoy thecourse even more.

[Jud_T]

Nope.  The architecture is the prerequisite for fun, interesting golf.  The conditioning just allows it to shine through.  It doesn't work the other way around.  Would you rather play the best course in the world in horrid conditions or a dogtrack with the best conditioning in the world? I'd say neither, but if I have to pick one it's the first one.  The second one is a nonstarter IMO.

[Jaeger Kovich]

As long as it is fun to putt, I take architecture... 1 exception - If the greens are legit 11 I might be interested.

[Matthew Essig]

Nope.  But good conditions are paramount to achieving the architect's vision.  

Agree with this. I am fairly certain "dirt/weeds" (reply #2) is not what the architect had in mind.

[Andrew Buck]

In an effort to better explain, here is the course, and I've shaded the areas where fairway has been lost.  If the option is you have the chemical and maintenance budget in *normal* years to maintain these parameters, and the shaded areas are now at rough height which is less susceptible to disease but still provides access to greens, is that a worth the trade-off.  Now obviously this isn't the only option, which I will discuss in the next post, but this should give a visual aid to the discussion.  

[Andrew Buck]

In general, I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice good architecture for superior conditions, all the time.  But, part of good design should promote or make possible decent conditions.  If slopes and drainage are not designed to allow good turf mainteance, then that is not very good design, and thus such design should be reworked.

But, great design can't always overcome seasonal and weather event pressure.  Good architecture shouldn't be necessarily sacrificed for the seasonally wet or dry, or hot or cold extremes that are to be expected in various regional climates.  So long as the design takes into account these seasonal extremes, but allow the superintendent to present the maintenance meld that allows great architecture to shine most of the expected seasons, then design on noteworthy courses shouldn't be discarded capriciously.  iMHO.

RJ,

I think this is a good point, however in this particular case, I'm not referring to the occasional midwest year that has dry ground, followed by heavy rains followed by extreme heat and humidity that can back almost all courses. 

I think the easiest way to work around these issues is to have an accurate assessment of the conditions (environmental and financial) upfront.  If you are going to open a course in the midwest with wide fairways, and the total maintenance budget is going to be around $300k, it may not be possible to use bent grass for the fairways (or to have 50+ bunkers).  That said, dreams of 20 years prior (or 100 years prior) still result in reality of today. 

In this particular case, I would likely welcome more native areas and a lower level of maintenance in a few areas to allow for the width (as I suspect the preventative chemicals/maintenance on the wider fairways would be approx $5k per year).  That said, I think the overall members and public play of this golf course would prefer that the smaller fairways were maintained well, and other areas weren't sacrificed.

[Douglas Kelley]

What was the process to determine which areas of fairway to cut?  This looks like a slippery slope to me.  The yellow shaded areas appear to be areas where fairway width would be a great thing -- more width, strategy, better angles, etc.  If the club gives up that fairway now for short term budget concerns it will never get it back.  Why not give up "less important" fairway areas?  Add a little bit to the carry distance to reach each fairway, and you've solved your problem.  This solution just feels like a Trojan horse to make the course more challenging for those who equate difficulty with quality.

[Jason Topp]

To me it appears to be an easy call for a one time decision - narrow fairways are better than dead fairways. 

However, long term, that is exactly the type of thinking that degrades the quality of the architecture.  Someone will want to add trees to that rough.

Where is this course?  Some of the bunkers have a Goldstrand appearance to them. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

There are bunkers in almost every area that you shaded that don't seem to be serving much purpose. Wouldn't trading them for the lost bits of fairway make just as much sense?