Are perfectly uniform "fescue" areas the white sand bunkers of the 2020's?

[PCCraig]

I noticed a thread the other day on Twitter that was started by a golf course superintendent who asked to see photos of other club's natural/no-mow/fescue areas. What followed was a number of pictures of courses with green grass and perfectly uniform brown leather colored tall grass.


Sure, the feature looks great in photos and adds a ton of texture to a course, but at what point has this trend gone too far and starts defeating the original purpose of having these areas? Here in Minnesota, we must have some of the worst natural soils in the world to try to grow tall wispy fescue areas as our soil is so rich you effectively need to rip up all the topsoil and replace it with sand to do it correctly.


And it now seems that if you do have these no-mow areas, there is an expectation that it be completely free of weeds and if a ball is hit in the area that it should be thin enough that the ball can be found and easily played.


What really is the point of these natural areas? Lower maintenance costs through less water and mowing? Texture to lend toward eye candy? Are they supposed to be hazards in particular in the absence of now cut trees?


Some of these perfect no-mow areas remind me of the perfectly white bunker sand that many clubs have installed in recent years. I understand TOUR players really like the playability of that hard packed sand, but it's always looked ridiculous to me to have bright white sand in a place like Minnesota or pretty much anywhere in the Midwest or Northeast where you can find almost nothing natural about it.


So shouldn't no-mow and fescue areas on a golf course be a reflection of their surroundings? If the natural habitat is a prairie with wildflowers, milkweed, and all kinds of stuff mixed in...shouldn't that be what is allowed to grow in these areas, perceived playability be dammed? Do inland golf courses really need all of these no-mow areas? Or do they really do help in the long run with saving on water and mowing if cared for properly?

[Mark_Fine]

A few quick comments; I don't like the bright white sand in bunkers as it only makes them look even more artificial especially on Parkland courses.  As far as no-mow areas, I don't really care to much how they are maintained IF they are in "out-of-play" areas.  However, it they are in play, they do need maintenance and should be kept thin and wispy if possible (limit the amount of water and don't fertilize these areas like normal rough).  No one likes to look for lost golf balls.  It gets old fast and really slows up play. 

[Bernie Bell]

“What really is the point of these natural areas?”

Instagram.

[Mark_Fine]

Bernie,
In CA for example, Forrest and I were essentially paid to remove irrigated turf from golf courses.  If done right and in the correct areas, they can look great and save water/money.
Mark

[Bernie Bell]

Mark, those are two big "ifs," in my experience, limited as it is.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Pat - You nailed it!


I'm not very old, nor have I been doing this for very long, but a decent portion of my time consulting at clubs is often taken up listening to complains about clumpy fescue... reminding the committees fescue is literally a "clump grass" normally doesn't appease them  !


These areas are always evolving and chemically treating them to keep the big nasty weeds out is way more costly and labor intensive than most think. I have no issue with the desire to always be improving, it just needs to be understood that perfection in these areas is always temporary and often very expensive.

[Jason Topp]

From a golf perspective, I am starting to see these areas as essentially in course out of bounds in our part of the world.  These areas are actually worse than out of bounds because repeated ball searches are a feature of the experience.

The only place where these areas work well is where the club has spent millions of dollars to sand cap the property..  That approach makes no economic sense and strays from my ideal of having a course reflect its location.

I think the best solution from a golf perspective would be to keep these areas maintained as lightly maintained rough - infrequent mowing, no irrigation.  Just keep them low enough you do not spend all of your time looking for balls.

The problem with that approach is that it looks terrible and members will  want to do something about it.  I fear the "solution."

[Jason Thurman]

At least white sand bunkers were widespread in their heyday. If you wanted them at your club, you could have them. Well-maintained native areas are mostly myth.


Of course, the golfer who loves Instagram and hates keeping score doesn't care.

[jeffwarne]

I do get a kick out of the words "natural areas" as if they require no maintenance.
And when you take out all the trees, invariably they are replaced with "natural areas" which take a lot of work, OR are complained about because they are unplayable and/or lead to ball hunting .
then, throw in Lymes/ticks multiple tickborne diseases and you are going to hear about such areas.


The phrase "Out of play areas" cracks me up too
Pat has nailed it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Gee, uniform rough starts looking better all the time. No trees, no ticks, no extra work -- you just mow it *less*, and the fairway widths are more fluid & changeable than with 'naturalized' areas. I'd even suggest that, with today's 7 woods and hybrids, playing out of uniform rough works just fine for mid to high handicappers too -- or at least is easier for them than the 'wispy' fescue or 'waste areas'.
 

[Sean_A]

I do get a kick out of the words "natural areas" as if they require no maintenance.
And when you take out all the trees, invariably they are replaced with "natural areas" which take a lot of work, OR are complained about because they are unplayable and/or lead to ball hunting .
then, throw in Lymes/ticks multiple tickborne diseases and you are going to hear about such areas.


The phrase "Out of play areas" cracks me up too
Pat has nailed it.

Do folks have photos of these out of play native areas? I haven't seen many courses where there was that much space between fairways that there was room for native areas which are out of play. Are the fairways wide enough on these courses? It all sounds very odd to me.


Ciao

[Bernie Bell]

I do get a kick out of the words "natural areas" as if they require no maintenance.
And when you take out all the trees, invariably they are replaced with "natural areas" which take a lot of work, OR are complained about because they are unplayable and/or lead to ball hunting .
then, throw in Lymes/ticks multiple tickborne diseases and you are going to hear about such areas.

The phrase "Out of play areas" cracks me up too
Pat has nailed it.

Do folks have photos of these out of play native areas? I haven't seen many courses where there was that much space between fairways that there was room for native areas which are out of play. Are the fairways wide enough on these courses? It all sounds very odd to me.

Ciao

Sean, I don't have a photo of it, but this should link to overhead of Four Streams in Maryland.  The area between 3 and 4 is a ridge.  Definitely in play from #3 tee, less so from #4 but still often.  Terrible to find a ball in, usually difficult to advance if you did depending on the time of year.  But it was pretty from the entrance road along #4. 

https://course.bluegolf.com/bluegolf/course/course/memberscfourstreams/holemap.htm?hole=1&next=overview.htm%231

[MCirba]

Pat,


Great post.


"Out of play areas" should be native species requiring as little maintenance as possible and reflecting the "sense of place", but are too often "out of place areas".

[Jason Topp]

I do get a kick out of the words "natural areas" as if they require no maintenance.
And when you take out all the trees, invariably they are replaced with "natural areas" which take a lot of work, OR are complained about because they are unplayable and/or lead to ball hunting .
then, throw in Lymes/ticks multiple tickborne diseases and you are going to hear about such areas.


The phrase "Out of play areas" cracks me up too
Pat has nailed it.

Do folks have photos of these out of play native areas? I haven't seen many courses where there was that much space between fairways that there was room for native areas which are out of play. Are the fairways wide enough on these courses? It all sounds very odd to me.


Ciao

Sean - Here is a link to the Google Image page for my course which gives you a sense of where I come from:  https://www.google.com/search?q=windsong+farm&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS909US909&sxsrf=ALeKk02S7UIY3jR6DZHl3A8NSQpi4H7EpQ:1626205622208&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi21sWD6ODxAhVmAZ0JHaXAD1MQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625


Fairways are plenty wide - when I have looked the playing corridors are around 60 yards wide but in a low handicap group you have one or two searches a round, which a mid-teen handicap group you probably have 5-6 and with guests that are not used to the course, you can have endless searches by the end of the round.  On links courses, the grass is sparse enough that the searches are perfectly fine.  In most of the US, the rich soils mean that the plants grow thick.  It looks pretty but you pretty much walk back to the tee or concede the hole. 


Our superintendent has done a good job mitigating the problem by cutting things back in heavily trafficked spots but the wrong day can be a long day. 

[PCCraig]

Pat,

Great post.

"Out of play areas" should be native species requiring as little maintenance as possible and reflecting the "sense of place", but are too often "out of place areas".

Right, I think "native" areas can add a lot to a hole in the right situations. Our 3rd hole is a 125-130 yard par-3 with a benched green. It's not the best picture, but see below of the view from the tee. The player must hit over a native area that has a variety of grasses and in this case, weeds in the form of Milkweed. My personal preference is that it fits its surroundings well and I actually like the milkweed as it promotes butterflies (this time of year the hole is filled with Monarchs which I hate to admit it is a really cool look) and other pollinators. The downside is the area really isn't playable and its effectively a lost ball, so admittedly not a great situation for ladies or juniors.

Would the hole be better with just mowed rough, especially on a ~100 yard hole...I'm not sure. Perhaps you could kill the entire area and reseed with thinner fescues, but is that really worth all the effort and costs? Not sure either.

Honest question, but how would an area such as this have been maintained a 100 years ago? Sporadic hand mowing? Obviously no irrigation would of hit this spot, so other than a monthly mow just left to nature? Curious as to others thoughts there as to what would be the most authentic way to maintain an area like this on a classic course. Certainly the GC Superintendents of Minnesota in the 1920's weren't hand spraying weeds in out of play areas??

[Sean_A]

I do get a kick out of the words "natural areas" as if they require no maintenance.
And when you take out all the trees, invariably they are replaced with "natural areas" which take a lot of work, OR are complained about because they are unplayable and/or lead to ball hunting .
then, throw in Lymes/ticks multiple tickborne diseases and you are going to hear about such areas.


The phrase "Out of play areas" cracks me up too
Pat has nailed it.

Do folks have photos of these out of play native areas? I haven't seen many courses where there was that much space between fairways that there was room for native areas which are out of play. Are the fairways wide enough on these courses? It all sounds very odd to me.


Ciao

Sean - Here is a link to the Google Image page for my course which gives you a sense of where I come from:  https://www.google.com/search?q=windsong+farm&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS909US909&sxsrf=ALeKk02S7UIY3jR6DZHl3A8NSQpi4H7EpQ:1626205622208&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi21sWD6ODxAhVmAZ0JHaXAD1MQ_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625


Fairways are plenty wide - when I have looked the playing corridors are around 60 yards wide but in a low handicap group you have one or two searches a round, which a mid-teen handicap group you probably have 5-6 and with guests that are not used to the course, you can have endless searches by the end of the round.  On links courses, the grass is sparse enough that the searches are perfectly fine.  In most of the US, the rich soils mean that the plants grow thick.  It looks pretty but you pretty much walk back to the tee or concede the hole. 


Our superintendent has done a good job mitigating the problem by cutting things back in heavily trafficked spots but the wrong day can be a long day.

Thanks

60 yard playing corridor plus native area out of play? What's that, another 20 yards or is it 60 and a search?  If it's 60 with a search that is definitely not out of play! 30 yards wide of the centre of the fairway should not be an area requiring harsh searches. Every member course should overwhelming accommodate 30 yard wide of the centre of the fairway. It doesn't matter the type of grass, terrain or weather. 60 yards with near death is begging for the game to be slowed down.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Fescue on sandy soils is great.  Fescue on rich soils is a mess, and usually transitions to “not fescue” in short order anyway.


Anytime anything gets hyped as a savior for water use or wildlife habitat or whatever, it becomes hard to argue against and proliferates in areas where it doesn’t work so well, thanks to consultants who sound like a broken record.


At the same time, it’s not an easy problem to solve.  I’ve had several superintendents tell me recently that bluegrass rough requires more input and management than bentgrass fairways, which turns the arguments about width completely on their head (as long as you have a big enough irrigation supply).  The only problem with that logic is that members are more likely to accept brown roughs than brown fairways in a drought.

[Tim Martin]

I agree with Tom and would add that once the USGA started to hype it as a panacea for all things back in the late 1990’s it’s use exploded. When done right it has aesthetic appeal but I think it’s benefits are oversold.

[John Emerson]

There a many problems with these so called native areas.  The 2 biggest problems I see at many courses that have native areas is 1) the wrong species AND cultivar  2) the seeding rate.



Tall fescue, perennial ryegrass, and KY bluegrass are almost guaranteed lost balls.  These should be avoided at all cost.  Fine fescues only!  Hard, sheep, and maybe some chewings.  Red creeping should be avoided and can be just as dense as tall fescue or Ky bluegrass. 


The specific cultivars are just as important too.  I don’t have a cultivar list in front of me, but I am currently evaluating 40 different cultivars of fine fescues in an NTEP trial.  Some of them are great for these native areas and others are the densest fine fescues I’ve ever seen.  This is critical in determining the future playability and viability of a grass for native areas.


Seeding rates are another huge problem.  Seeding rates at 2-4 lbs of pure live seed per 1000 sqft have been shown to be successful, but I will tell you from experience…. 4 lbs PLS/1000 sqft is too much if you’re wanting the “whispy and I can find my ball” look.  I recommend to golf course 2-3 lbs PLS/1000 sqft. 

[Brent Carlson]

Pat,


What is the point of these areas?  I would say beauty first and foremost.  I tried unsuccessfully to find the MacKenzie quote where he talks about layers of color on golf courses.  For Midwest courses green dominates naturally.  So you basically have green plus sand plus?  Not many courses are adding trees for color anymore, especially non-native ones.  That's where the fescue comes in.  Yes it is very hard to do on rich soils.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat,


What is the point of these areas?  I would say beauty first and foremost.  I tried unsuccessfully to find the MacKenzie quote where he talks about layers of color on golf courses.  For Midwest courses green dominates naturally.  So you basically have green plus sand plus?  Not many courses are adding trees for color anymore, especially non-native ones.  That's where the fescue comes in.  Yes it is very hard to do on rich soils.

In my many years of consulting I have never heard a club representative ask for fescue areas on the grounds of making it prettier.  Usually they want it because they saw Shinnecock on TV and want to be like that.

[Pete_Pittock]

Our course has defined tall grassed mounds as red marking penalty areas

[Thomas Dai]

A couple of thoughts from a UK perspective.
'Out of play' areas have implications for wildlife (ground nesting birds, insects, wild flowers, butterflies, mice, voles etc etc etc and are thus an opportunity for clubs to do and be seen to be doing something for the environment.
They also have maintenance implications however, for if you ignore 'out of play' areas completely or near completely then it won't be long before the self-seeding trees, scrub and brush takes over and then the 'fun' and expense begins in removing the now large self-seeders as grazing animals, which used to keep such areas under some control, ain't frequent on many courses these days (unfortunately).
Give such areas an annual good cut or two at the right time of year, after the ground nesting birds etc etc have done their bit, and the self-seeders should be kept at bay.
One of the better examples of how this operates is Stinchcombe Hill in Gloucestershire. Gorgeous looking high native grasses swaying gently in the wind but well off the fairway and full of skylarks etc until cut in late summer.
atb

[Kyle Harris]

If it’s perfectly uniform it’s fair.


NOT what we meant by fescue fairways, though, alas.

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,


Great post.


"Out of play areas" should be native species requiring as little maintenance as possible and reflecting the "sense of place", but are too often "out of place areas".

There is only one turf grass that is native to the United States and I’ve never seen it on a golf course.