Greens versus Bunkers - which do you choose if you only can afford one?

[Jerry Kluger]

I have recently played some public and some private courses here in North Carolina where they have greens and bunkers which are in need of major work but they can only afford to take on one or the other.  The greens are bent grass and get severely stressed in the summer and most barely survive.  The bunkers have no sand and are all dirt and rocks so they play lift, rake and place in the bunkers. The solution to the greens is Champion Bermuda or other similar grasses which thrive in the heat and can remain firm and fast until they go dormant - interestingly, they remain fast when dormant by rolling them which smoothes them out and brings up their speeds.  The bunkers require rebuilding which is more difficult and is more money out of pocket but the course can remain open while the work is being done which is not the case with the greens. In all these cases they chose to do the greens and keep the bunkers the way they are.  I don't know that I would have done the greens first as they are certainly playable while the bunkers are ugly and bring down the overall quality of the course.


What are your thoughts?

[Rob Marshall]

I would play a course with nice greens and poor bunkers. I'm not interested in great bunkers and poor greens.

[Tim Martin]

I would rather have the good greens than bunkers. If you have a low bounce wedge out of hard pan bunkers you have a chance.

[archie_struthers]

 




Yep , I'm with Rob and Tim!

[Sean_A]

Greens and drainage have to be first priorities.

Ciao

[Tom Bacsanyi]

In NC, convert to 'mooda. Not even a question unless way up in the mountains.


A bunker renovation could potentially be done in-house and even in-season (still hire an architect naturally), but starting over with bermuda on the greens will require a shut down and most likely outside help. Point being, get the greens done. Then look into a multi-year bunker renovation potentially in-house.


Somerset Hills is an example of a club that doesn't have a particularly huge budget but they've been able to rebuild all of their bunkers over the course of a few seasons.


Not having to babysit bent greens through the NC summer will free up some staff for project work.


Oh and if you do bunkers, kill as many as you can and reduce the acreage as much as you can get away with. Bunkers are quite literally money pits.

[Jim_Coleman]

   I get on 18 greens in every round. Maybe I get in 3 or four bunkers.  Not a tough choice.

[Mark_Fine]

Of course the greens.  Bunkers are hazards.   At least they used to be.

[David_Tepper]

Yes, do the greens first.

Depending on the number of bunkers, their location and how deep they are, I wonder if some of the bunkers could be grassed over. A pitch shot out of a grassy hollow greenside, where the grass is maybe shoe-top height, can be just as challenging as a bunker shot for the average player.

[Thomas Dai]

Greens every bloody time! And bunkers should be hazards not manicured sand gardens!
atb

[Jeff Johnston]

Nae greens - nae golf

[Jerry Kluger]

Let me add a couple of facts.  The greens have fans to keep the air circulating and they are very slow but they are playable.  The bunkers are completely washed out and all that is left is the red clay soil and stones so it is arguable that they should be treated as ground under repair as there is a good chance that you will damage your club playing out of them.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Let me add a couple of facts.  The greens have fans to keep the air circulating and they are very slow but they are playable.  The bunkers are completely washed out and all that is left is the red clay soil and stones so it is arguable that they should be treated as ground under repair as there is a good chance that you will damage your club playing out of them.

The bunker is still a hazard. Any player could choose to take an unplayable and drop out of the bunker. Could the bunker count be reduced? If half the bunkers were grassed over and converted to grass bunkers would that help the maintenance concerns? Would it detract from the course playability?


The value to the course would always manifest itself more with good greens first. Even if the greens could be improved for the short term before being completely rebuilt later, that would be the best decision.


Being that the greens require fans, is the natural airflow around the greens limited by trees in close proximity?

[Tim Martin]

Let me add a couple of facts.  The greens have fans to keep the air circulating and they are very slow but they are playable.  The bunkers are completely washed out and all that is left is the red clay soil and stones so it is arguable that they should be treated as ground under repair as there is a good chance that you will damage your club playing out of them.

The bunker is still a hazard. Any player could choose to take an unplayable and drop out of the bunker. Could the bunker count be reduced? If half the bunkers were grassed over and converted to grass bunkers would that help the maintenance concerns? Would it detract from the course playability?


The value to the course would always manifest itself more with good greens first. Even if the greens could be improved for the short term before being completely rebuilt later, that would be the best decision.


Being that the greens require fans, is the natural airflow around the greens limited by trees in close proximity?

Tom Bacsanyi intimated as much about grassing over some of the bunkers in his reply # 5. It seems that in some cases the design and coffers could improve with some thoughtful elimination. I don’t have the knowledge as to what kind of savings would result.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Is this a trick question?

[Will Thrasher]

Greens - not a tough decision imo

[Jim_Coleman]

   It seems, Jerry, that you're looking for help in recommending that the bunkers be fixed first.  Not gonna get it here.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Let me add a couple of facts.  The greens have fans to keep the air circulating and they are very slow but they are playable.  The bunkers are completely washed out and all that is left is the red clay soil and stones so it is arguable that they should be treated as ground under repair as there is a good chance that you will damage your club playing out of them.

They have fans and they are slow because they are the wrong grass type for the site and the climate. When bentgrass puttability was light years ahead of bermuda, southern sites just planted bent and tried to keep them alive through the summer. Now that ultradwarf bermudas are really good, and simply way better than bent in the heat of the summer in terms of speed, firmness, water and input requirements, there really are no excuses for bent in the South (other than courses that close for the summer like Augusta).


We understand that the bunkers suck and that's what you want to be the answer. But it is not the answer.

[Tom_Doak]

We understand that the bunkers suck and that's what you want to be the answer. But it is not the answer.

Maybe it is the answer?


Greens are more important in the long term, no question.  But if the bunkers are the equivalent of open wounds, that is very likely making golfers unlikely to come back.  Grassing them in costs money, too, so either fixing them up or eliminating them must be somewhere fairly high on the priority list.


I kinda doubt anyone from GCA [other than Jerry] has paid to play this course recently.  A quick survey of people who actually play there would be more valuable than this community's input.

[Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG]

We understand that the bunkers suck and that's what you want to be the answer. But it is not the answer.

Maybe it is the answer?


Greens are more important in the long term, no question.  But if the bunkers are the equivalent of open wounds, that is very likely making golfers unlikely to come back.  Grassing them in costs money, too, so either fixing them up or eliminating them must be somewhere fairly high on the priority list.


I kinda doubt anyone from GCA [other than Jerry] has paid to play this course recently.  A quick survey of people who actually play there would be more valuable than this community's input.

While the greens are the bread and butter of a golf course and if they are bad people won't return, but if they are serviceable ie ok but slow in summer - which it sounds like they are, then its probably passable for most customers. However if the lipstick is ugly then the bunkers should be a higher priority to keep the customers happy. As Tom D said, it all depends on the clientele, if they're into nice green grass, white bunkers, new carts etc and firmness and speed are secondary then that answers the question.... Most golfers do not have the GCA view of a course. 

Personally my answer to this was looking at it strictly from a financial standpoint. If you're giving me x amount of capital budget where would I put it. A lot depends on the actual conditions of the greens and assuming they don't need a ton of work other than regrassing and possible tree removal, I'd prioritize the bunkers, as that greens work could be done from the operating budget (although would require a shutdown). Whereas a bunker redo would be potentially a bigger costlier (capital) outlay. If the greens are so bad that they need to be rebuilt then the argument swings the other way. It's similar to what Tom B said but I'd rather take on a regrassing in-house over a bunker project. Ultimately it comes down to how bad the greens actually are (ie is it more than a grassing issue), how much money is available and the capabilities of the staff and what they can handle in house.

[Jerry Kluger]

There are 2 types of courses which I am speaking about. One is a private club which is owned by one of the companies that owns multiple courses around the US.  So far as I know the club has a large membership and I would imagine that is operating at a profit which to me means that they are probably saying that they don't need to spend the money so why do it.  I look at this as a bad business decision as I think we can all agree that the boom we are now seeing in golf isn't necessarily going to continue indefinitely and when they need to keep the current membership and at the same time replace those who leave the area or decide to cut back on their golf spending, they will be competing for members and the conditions will be a consideration for those looking to join.


The second club is what we call semi-private.  You can join and pay monthly dues or you can just pay as you go.  The course is one of my favorites in the area and part of the reason it doesn't get the recognition that it deserves is because of the conditioning of the course.  They are now going to address the greens but they don't have the money to deal with the bunkers.  The bunkers fit well into the design and are an integral part of the strategy of playing the course.  If you know that the bunkers are played as ground under repair then you have no reason to avoid them other than the obvious.  I understand that there will be quit a few new homes and businesses built in the area so I am hoping that the course will see greater revenue and the ability to renovate the bunkers.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Played White Manor today outside Philly.  The greens had plenty of grass, were smooth but very slow (probably less than 9 because of morning rain).  Many of the bunkers were a disgrace - dirt, mud and stones.  The round was pleasant if not memorable. Had the bunkers been good and the greens poor, I suspect we’d have walked off.

[Jeff Schley]

Philosophically, the less amount of bunkers the lower the maintenance cost, faster the play, etc. I would like to see less bunkers on courses in general, not more as many are overbunkered as it is. Having good greens and maintaining them is paramount for bringing me back.

[Tom_Doak]

   Played White Manor today outside Philly.  The greens had plenty of grass, were smooth but very slow (probably less than 9 because of morning rain).  Many of the bunkers were a disgrace - dirt, mud and stones.  The round was pleasant if not memorable. Had the bunkers been good and the greens poor, I suspect we’d have walked off.

"Very slow" is less than 9 ?


Jesus.

[Jim_Coleman]

  Yes. I would say greens at a private club stimping at less than 9 in the Philadelphia area would be considered very slow by most golfers in this area.