Agronomy, Strategy and Design

[Jeff Segol]

When a GCA is formulating a design, does any of it reflect the grass type you're planning to grow, and the grass you know will grow on the site? This is from my own experience. When I began playing seriously, it was in SoCal, and I was pretty much a bomb-and-gouger, because my home course (Los Robles Greens, Thousand Oaks, Baldock) featured mostly kikuyu grass fairways. Therefore, the best way to score was to get as close to the green as possible, then flip a lob wedge. I vividly remember the first time I tried that after moving back to NorCal (Palo Alto Golf Course, now the Baylands). Chunk!! Chunk!!. Blade!! S***k!!. Basically my previous playing style wasn't possible on Bay Area grasses. It occurs to me that if you knew my Los Robles approach would be common, you would probably make bunkers closer to the greens, more internal slopes, etc., to try and defend the green complexes. You might do something different if you knew golfers would be playing from tighter lies, and therefore had less margin for error.


Just curious how the practitioners think about this.


Thanks,
Jeff

[Tom_Doak]

I worked on a course in Sydney 3-4 years ago, Concord GC, that was kikuyu from tee to green.  I guess we could have accepted that the ball wouldn’t bounce, and built smaller greens and such, but I didn’t think that it would be compelling that way.  So we convinced them to maintain couch (bermuda) on the green approaches and surrounds, the same way Royal Melbourne has fescue in those areas.  There is just a bigger variety of golf shots to be played that way.

[Adrian_Stiff]

All golf course architects will be different how they factor the agronomy aspect into the importance and they may change with each project as each is very different. For me it is very high on the list but my designing is far more geared to the golf courses working financially rather than monuments high in the ratings.


Those courses won't be doing 40,000 rounds so 'my rules' won't be so important. The top end courses like all forms of architecture can end up great because they break the rules. Great houses have huge hallways. In low cost development you don't want to waste a square metre.


That aside there are a lot of things you can do well that is still relatively cheap to do. In go it alone operations where an architect is not employed you can still see glaring mistakes.

[Jeff_Brauer]

So, yeah, we consider it, but as Adrian also alludes, if we work in certain regions and certain types of courses (busy public) we probably have most of that mentally programmed in our local design style.


As Tom D alludes, if you are using a different grass type, it makes a difference in some ways.  For instance, the first time I designed a course with Zoysia fairways and knew we were going to sod them, I went to a nearby Fazio course that had done the same thing.  I learned from the super that Zoysia sod needs at least a 4.5% slope to drain well on installation since it sort of sops up water. 


Since we had a hilly site, we were also concerned with maximum side slopes to keep balls from running off the fw.  Zoysia allowed more cross slope than bent or Bermuda would, maybe up to 10% rather than 5% some grasses would be limited to.  Also, Zoysia really doesn't have a lot of bump and run potential as other grasses, so we used fewer of those chipping areas than we might have otherwise.


I agree with Adrian - most courses work on tight budgets, both construction, and future operations, which makes many design decisions for us.  For most, greens over 6,500 SF have more space than is really necessary for pin areas, and we get questioned about proposing any green that is larger.  Similarly, the bunkers may get limited in both number and total size, making the design focus on bunkers that are sized minimally (not bad, check out my comments on the TP bunkering by Rees) and service more than one purpose - i.e., aesthetic hazards that are in play for many player levels, targets, save bunkers, directional aids, whatever.  Circulation - both golfer and maintenance is an under appreciated need in design, which contributes to better agronomy in subtle ways.

[archie_struthers]

 


Great question!


 When I hear that a certain course is awful or someone hates playing there it's often the maintenance practices employed that makes someone say this ,not necessarily the architecture. Lots of players hate firm and fast and complain that the greens don't hold a shot ( )    It could be they don't like it lush either as the rough is to penal for their taste.




What is important when evaluating grassing is the weather in the area, the customer who will be playing there and most importantly the budget and skill level of the superintendent

[Jeff Segol]

Thanks for your responses. Archie's comment brought to mind the last round I played at Baylands, where two of the guys I played with thought the course, although links stye, still didn't play very "linksy" in terms of being able to run shots on, and wondered if it was using paspalum on everything but the greens. I queried Forrest Richardson, and said he had never heard that comment before, but did note that the paspalum can grow fairly quickly in the warm weather, so the areas near the greens need to be kept closely mown. I've put in a comment/request regarding that to the Baylands management. Hopefully they'll do so.

Great question!


It immediately came to mind when I hear that a certain course is awful or someone hates playing there. It's often the maintenance practices employed that makes someone say this not necessarily the architecture. Lots of players hate firm and fast and complain that the greens don't hold a shot ( )    It could be they don't like it lush either as the rough is to penal for their taste.




What is important when evaluating grassing is the weather in the area, the customer who will be playing there and most importantly the budget and skill level of the superintendent

Thanks for the

[Jeff_Brauer]

Another typical debate involves what grass is going on the greens. There are more grass options now than in a Colorado pot shop, and high play courses might opt for a grass choice that is easier maintenance (by a smidge) over one that rolls the fastest, truest, etc. 


And, one old time technique is using grass blends, on the theory that one of three types of grass is more likely to survive a freeze, drought, etc. leaving you with something, at the expense of "perfect conditions" every day.  But, if they go with a fast one, we might tone down the contours a smidge as well.

[Jeff Segol]

That debate I'm aware of, matching the grass to the contours, and vice versa. In that regard, I don't think Forrest knows this, but when we were considering him for the Baylands remodel, I went out and played Mira Vista in Berkeley, where he had done a prior renovation. My report back to the group was something like: "This guy's good, but we need to make sure he stays under control with the greens, because it looks like he can get a little wacky." I can report that the end result at Baylands was greens that are puttable, and receptive to quality golf shots.


 be

Another typical debate involves what grass is going on the greens. There are more grass options now than in a Colorado pot shop, and high play courses might opt for a grass choice that is easier maintenance (by a smidge) over one that rolls the fastest, truest, etc. 


And, one old time technique is using grass blends, on the theory that one of three types of grass is more likely to survive a freeze, drought, etc. leaving you with something, at the expense of "perfect conditions" every day.  But, if they go with a fast one, we might tone down the contours a smidge as well.