[MCirba]

Mark,


We have a 1939 Overhead picture of the CC of Scranton and the short cut chipping areas around the greens were maintained then as well as on Travis's Original drawing.

That aerial is amazing and the recent return to short grass around the greens at Scranton has really turned the lights up on the architecture of your course, Greg.

[Paul Gray]

And I seem to recall Colt commenting a century or so ago about how at many of the finest courses the transition from fairway to green was almost indistinguishable.

[Tom_Doak]

And I seem to recall Colt commenting a century or so ago about how at many of the finest courses the transition from fairway to green was almost indistinguishable.

Maybe you are thinking of MacKenzie:  "There is no defined line between fairways at the great schools of golf like St. Andrews and Hoylake."  If there's another quote from Colt, I would love to see it as I don't remember anything like that from his book.

[Mark_Fine]

Old subject.  Just curious if there are any new thoughts on the topic?  I point to the example of fairway cut added beyond the green at Oakmont #3. If you are a foot over that green you now roll 40 or 50 yards into the “short grass chipping area”.  Is that “restoring” the original design by having fairway cut restored behind the green or is that just adding a new maintenance twist because modern grasses and mowing equipment allow it?

[Thomas Dai]

Olden day gang mowers towed by tractors had wide turning circles etc and produced different and less intricate mowing lines and patterns to ride-on mowers of the more modern era.
I recall watching gang mowers circling and mowing around the rear of greens as this was the best, perhaps sometimes the only, way to drive back to the fairway.
Perhaps the use of gang mowers was another reason why there were less trees around greens in times long gone bye?
Still reckon the best mowers are sheep though, with a great sword and variable nibbling lines, provided of course that there are no critters around that might want to feast on them!
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Thomas,
Maintenance has more of an impact on golf courses and golf course architecture than we often realize.  Some architects wrote extensively about their design intentions and about how their courses should be maintained while others did not.  Closely mown areas around greens never seemed to get discussed too much in the Golden Age and it could have been because it wasn’t an easy option back then.  But where they had fairway cut around greens did they intend balls to roll vast distances away from the sides or backs or off the fronts of greens as they can now if these areas are cut as short grass?  Look at some of the false fronts at a course like Rolling Green.  Balls can roll 60 yards or more off the fronts of some of them often to the same divot filled spot.  Was that Flynn’s intention?  Same as in my example at Oakmont. Fownes loved to penalize a poor shot (maybe be would have loved #3 with tight short grass just beyond), but I am not so sure.  Seems to me these areas are simply more of an evolution of modern course agronomy and maintenance.  Whether they are what the original architect intended is another matter.  When doing “restoration” does it matter??

[Jim_Coleman]

   The false fronts at Rolling Green are not a function short mowing around greens; they are a function of elevated greens. The short mowing is just the fairways leading up to greens. There is very little mowing to the greens’ sides or backs.
   When Gary Player played at RG a few years ago, he criticized the course for having too many holes where short approaches would roll back from as little as 15 yards to as much as 50-60 yards. He has a point. On 12 of the holes (1,2,3,4,8,9,11,12, 14,15,17 and 18) a ball hit to the very front of the green will roll back a minimum of 15 yards and as much as 60 yards down the fairway, and on 3 others, (6, 13 and 16) the only thing stopping a 20+ yard rollback is rough fronting the green.

[mike_malone]

Mark,


 As Jim says the false fronts aren’t the same thing.


As for Flynn’s intentions the original designs show fairway in front of all greens except for 13 and 16.


On a different note I have always thought that he didn’t really appreciate the impact of trees on grass growth since many of our original trees were right around greens.


So I can only guess that he didn’t appreciate how grass heights for fairways would get so low.


I have for years tried to get us to address this issue but it gets ingrained in the machismo of the club. Watching balls roll down 75 yards is a differentiator the club loves.


I hopeful that we address this soon. The 8th green is set for serious work this fall.




I totally agree on 3 at Oakmont.

[Mark_Fine]

Jim/Mike,
I agree with you both.  Yes the false fronts on the perched greens at Rolling Green were meant to have fairway in front of them.  I used that as an example of how agronomy and maintenance have likely changed the intent of the original architect (from a playability standpoint).   Flynn called for fairway there but did he really want or expect balls to be rolling to where they do??  I don’t think so.  Same goes for fairway or “short” grass called for by the original architect on an old golf course on the sides or backs of greens. What was really their intent?  It is not always obvious.  Ross for example didn’t worry so much what was beyond his greens so if you put short grass behind his greens he may not care.  But he did worry about what was beside them. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()