[Matt Schoolfield]

So, I recently played some golf with a shaper and it was very enlightening. One of the rounds we played was at probably my favorite course in the area. As we played, he kept pointing out all the aspects of the course were poorly done, and the vast majority of the criticism was the excessive, even redundant, catch basins. A lot of the good points seemed to be about how it was probably more expensive than it needed to be, and the result will likely make a bit harder to maintain.

As the round went on, I started noticing it too, and I could really see why it would make some people think the course was less than perfect.

I just don't know how to square this with the fact that the course is still incredibly fun. Instead of generally flat terrain, you're presented with more hillocks and hummocks than any other course I've played in the region, and shots run through them with tenacity.

Even now, I still don't really know what to think. I can see sub-optimal design aspects, but it's still probably my favorite course in the area. Is there a place for, I dunno, fun-but-dumb courses? The only think that I can think of comparing it to is some over-the-top action movie, that is obviously not realistic, but is one that I'd watch over-and-over again.

[Tom_Doak]

You should never apologize for liking what you like.  Maybe the construction was inefficient and that will come back to bite them, or just cost you more to play than it should have.  Or maybe the shaper is just a snob.


There is lots of room in America for fun but dumb courses, as long as people really have fun there.

[Carl Johnson]

I guess I'd say that a fun course is excellent course design.  How much that costs to build and maintain is a different question.

[Michael Felton]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by catch basins, but if you look at the sunset time pictures of the classic links courses in the UK, they barely have a single flat spot. I get that flat is easier to maintain and probably cheaper to build, but that doesn't mean that not flat is dumb. Not flat is fun. Example - no. 10 at RSG:

[Ben Hollerbach]

Back when I was in design school I had a chance to meet a couple of the designers for the first generation Mazda Miata. It was fascinating to hear how they spoke about the car and what their goals were for the project. One of their comments that has stuck with me to this day was their focus on the driving experience and the sensation of "being in your own grand prix".
At a little over 100 hp, the car was never going to be the fastest on the road, but if they could make the car feel fast and feel on the edge of control even in common day to day driving, the public wouldn't care that the car was under-powered. The ability to enjoy all the car had to offer on a daily basis can be more valuable that requiring a purpose built race track to fully enjoy the peak of performance.
Time has of course shown that the Miata is both a fantastic daily driver and very capable track car, but that is more the except than the rule. Golf courses are often the same way. Many of the courses that are defined as excellent may not be enjoyable on a day to day basis. Many of the courses that the pubic finds most enjoyable do not rank very high in the excellence category. It is the existence of both, and all shades of grey in between, that makes things most interesting. Allowing the player to find the course that makes them feel like they're playing in their own championship.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by catch basins, but if you look at the sunset time pictures of the classic links courses in the UK, they barely have a single flat spot. I get that flat is easier to maintain and probably cheaper to build, but that doesn't mean that not flat is dumb. Not flat is fun. Example - no. 10 at RSG:

That's a great picture, but I also look at it and see three places they could have built a green without artificially flattening as much as they did for that green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Matt,


Redundant catch basins?  Did they put 2 of them in each low spot?


As to fun, yes, that should probably be the design criteria for 99% of courses that get built.  While that definition will vary from golfer to golfer, I always shot for a course that was attractive to the eye (a definition that can also vary) and where the bogey player could shoot about his/her average score consistently.


There is that kind of design, and then the technical aspects that support the design.  I can't comment on what was necessary on that site, and the "right amount" of drainage varies tremendously.  I hate to say it, but if that shaper so casually commented on the drainage design of a course he played once, he may have a bias towards no catch basins but it doesn't mean his opinion governs.


If it was a flat site, then it is easier to run pipe at grades under 1% typically than it is to move water via grading the surface to the required 2-3% minimum.  If it was a gently rolling site, my take would be to put basins only to stop water from running a long way down or crossing over greens, tees, and fw, knowing how hard those are to grow in, among other things.  I remember as a teen an article that called out "long soggy swales" as a mark of amateur or bad design, and that stuck with me.  Moreover, it is still true in most cases.  (not every course gets built in sandy soils)


Some designers/builders try to limit drainage runs to about 200-250 feet, which is about how long it takes flowing water to concentrate and create gullies.  There are actually formulas to figure it out based on slope, soils, etc., and it would probably be best design practice to know that formula......but even as geeky as I was on drainage, I never actually did understand it and went by feel and experience.


Prior to about 1985, drainage budgets might have been minimal, but then the super added drainage every year.  When budgets got bigger, and plastic pipe was cheaper and easier to install over concrete or CMP, most of us figured it was cheaper to just put as much as we could in right up front. Of course, the super still added drainage every year, but hopefully it was less.  Too often, it isn't done as well as it could have been done in original construction.


More drainage, in general, may make course ops and revenue streams better, even though each CB has potential to be a small maintenance problem. 


And yes, I understand that many, including Pete Dye who did work on a lot of flat sites moved towards more drainage to allow them to build whatever they wanted rather than follow the land.  I rarely got to that point, and it is usually easy for me to know when the philosophy is "anything goes" vs "Use when needed."  As pointed out earlier, I can't gauge the situation you saw without seeing it.

[Peter Bowman]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by catch basins, but if you look at the sunset time pictures of the classic links courses in the UK, they barely have a single flat spot. I get that flat is easier to maintain and probably cheaper to build, but that doesn't mean that not flat is dumb. Not flat is fun. Example - no. 10 at RSG:

That's a great picture, but I also look at it and see three places they could have built a green without artificially flattening as much as they did for that green.

good eye.  I bet I see the same spots

[Peter Bowman]

Matt,


Redundant catch basins?  Did they put 2 of them in each low spot?


As to fun, yes, that should probably be the design criteria for 99% of courses that get built.  While that definition will vary from golfer to golfer, I always shot for a course that was attractive to the eye (a definition that can also vary) and where the bogey player could shoot about his/her average score consistently.


There is that kind of design, and then the technical aspects that support the design.  I can't comment on what was necessary on that site, and the "right amount" of drainage varies tremendously.  I hate to say it, but if that shaper so casually commented on the drainage design of a course he played once, he may have a bias towards no catch basins but it doesn't mean his opinion governs.


If it was a flat site, then it is easier to run pipe at grades under 1% typically than it is to move water via grading the surface to the required 2-3% minimum.  If it was a gently rolling site, my take would be to put basins only to stop water from running a long way down or crossing over greens, tees, and fw, knowing how hard those are to grow in, among other things.  I remember as a teen an article that called out "long soggy swales" as a mark of amateur or bad design, and that stuck with me.  Moreover, it is still true in most cases.  (not every course gets built in sandy soils)


Some designers/builders try to limit drainage runs to about 200-250 feet, which is about how long it takes flowing water to concentrate and create gullies.  There are actually formulas to figure it out based on slope, soils, etc., and it would probably be best design practice to know that formula......but even as geeky as I was on drainage, I never actually did understand it and went by feel and experience.


Prior to about 1985, drainage budgets might have been minimal, but then the super added drainage every year.  When budgets got bigger, and plastic pipe was cheaper and easier to install over concrete or CMP, most of us figured it was cheaper to just put as much as we could in right up front. Of course, the super still added drainage every year, but hopefully it was less.  Too often, it isn't done as well as it could have been done in original construction.


More drainage, in general, may make course ops and revenue streams better, even though each CB has potential to be a small maintenance problem. 


And yes, I understand that many, including Pete Dye who did work on a lot of flat sites moved towards more drainage to allow them to build whatever they wanted rather than follow the land.  I rarely got to that point, and it is usually easy for me to know when the philosophy is "anything goes" vs "Use when needed."  As pointed out earlier, I can't gauge the situation you saw without seeing it.

I love your detailed posts like this.  You're a great learning resource

[Matt Schoolfield]

Redundant catch basins?  Did they put 2 of them in each low spot?

Occasionally, honestly, yes. We found one area that was effectively one contiguous low spot that had three. Knowing generally nothing about technical drainage, I speculate it was done was to get the water off the ground as fast as possible, but again, I have no idea.

he may have a bias towards no catch basins

I was under the assumption that lots of folks disliked catch basins. There were definitely more divots in the basins, but the slopes weren't so strong that they all just surrounded the drains.

[cary lichtenstein]

I once liked a course that not alot of people liked, soooo what!!!!!!!!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Redundant catch basins?  Did they put 2 of them in each low spot?

Occasionally, honestly, yes. We found one area that was effectively one contiguous low spot that had three. Knowing generally nothing about technical drainage, I speculate it was done was to get the water off the ground as fast as possible, but again, I have no idea.

he may have a bias towards no catch basins

I was under the assumption that lots of folks disliked catch basins. There were definitely more divots in the basins, but the slopes weren't so strong that they all just surrounded the drains.

Then, I stand corrected.  I think you may be right about getting water off faster with multiple drains in one spot.  The better engineering solution would be one larger catch basin.  I have seen jobs, where the architect doesn't calculate drainage volumes like I did, and ordered their "standard 4, 6, and 8 inch pipes and 12" plastic CB's because they don't.  At least they realized their mistake and tried to correct it with the materials on hand......but still not great drainage design.


I agree many people generally dislike catch basins, and have said that I dislike the idea that adding them allows more shaping freedom to create anything and still make it drain.  However, when the only design criteria big enough to get repeated 3 times - as in Drainage, Drainage, Drainage - people also like playing in soggy conditions.  Drainage is kind of like an offensive lineman in football, they only get called out when they make mistakes, but never get recognized for that long TD run as that is the running back doing it.

[Carl Johnson]

Drainage and Fun.  My club's course was built in 1929 without much dirt moving, if any.  I wasn't there, so I don't know for sure.  In any event the land was somewhat lumpy and had some relatively steep up and downs, with small valleys.  Then about 20 years ago it was renovated.  The fairway lumps were smoothed out and the ups and downs softened.  Now the drainage is worse, and we've had to put in a subsurface drainage system in one of the fairways.  The former contours drained much better.  My layman's take is that the surface had been shaped by drainage over eons.  The water chose it's way.  Now, were the former fairways more fun?  That's subjective, of course.  I liked them, the quirk, but others apparently think smooth surfaces are more fun.  They do make the course easier.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,


Was the subsurface drainage catch basins and pipe, or french drains, i.e. perf pipe surrounded in gravel to the top of the trench?


My rule of thumb always was to handle surface drainage problems with catch basins, and subsurface drainage with french drains.  French drains are a typical go to for supers but it is far less efficient.  And personally, while many would go for french drains because they are hidden, it doesn't make design sense to purposely install something that is inefficient in the name of aesthetics or play.

[Tony Ristola]

You should never apologize for liking what you like.  Maybe the construction was inefficient and that will come back to bite them, or just cost you more to play than it should have.  Or maybe the shaper is just a snob.


There is lots of room in America for fun but dumb courses, as long as people really have fun there.

As a discussion about drainage and catch basins has emerged here, I recall (hopefully correctly) you writing about the drainage solution you used at Pacific Dunes in at least some of the lows. It was a star system of perforated pipes, and I also seem to remember you were advised this wouldn't work. I'm curious, 20-years on, how have these drainage solutions fared?

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

You don't need to Dox the course, (although if you still live in the Bay area, I would be interested  ) but did you take any pictures of the offending catch basin configurations?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Matt,

You don't need to Dox the course, (although if you still live in the Bay area, I would be interested  ) but did you take any pictures of the offending catch basin configurations?

The only reason why I don't want to dox the course is because I don't want to accidentally dox the shaper. Again, it's probably my favorite course in the Bay Area, but has been pooh-poohed by both of the architecture nerds who have gone there on my advice. I wasn't taking any photos this round, but I'll play there again soon, and revive this thread then with some photos of redundant drainage.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

You don't need to Dox the course, (although if you still live in the Bay area, I would be interested  ) but did you take any pictures of the offending catch basin configurations?

The only reason why I don't want to dox the course is because I don't want to accidentally dox the shaper. Again, it's probably my favorite course in the Bay Area, but has been pooh-poohed by both of the architecture nerds who have gone there on my advice. I wasn't taking any photos this round, but I'll play there again soon, and revive this thread then with some photos of redundant drainage.

Sounds good Matt,


P.S.  I know this can't be Lake Chabot, I don't know if I've played a course with worse drainage. 

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,


Was the subsurface drainage catch basins and pipe, or french drains, i.e. perf pipe surrounded in gravel to the top of the trench?


My rule of thumb always was to handle surface drainage problems with catch basins, and subsurface drainage with french drains.  French drains are a typical go to for supers but it is far less efficient.  And personally, while many would go for french drains because they are hidden, it doesn't make design sense to purposely install something that is inefficient in the name of aesthetics or play.

I have forgotten the name of the system, but I've asked our superintendent via email.  I was originally told that they rely on Bernoulli's principal, but that's it.  Trenches were dug, pipes laid in, surface drains and small catch basins every so often.  This is the third year and so far to me, just a golfer, they seem to be doing the job quite well.  We used then on one old hole where the natural contours had been softened at lot, and on two new holes that had serious draining issues in certain places.

[Tom_Doak]

As a discussion about drainage and catch basins has emerged here, I recall (hopefully correctly) you writing about the drainage solution you used at Pacific Dunes in at least some of the lows. It was a star system of perforated pipes, and I also seem to remember you were advised this wouldn't work. I'm curious, 20-years on, how have these drainage solutions fared?

Hi Tony:


Thanks for remembering.  Yes, at my Archipalooza event before Pacific Dunes opened, I challenged Tom Paul and Ran to find a catch basin at Pacific Dunes after they had seen a lot on Bandon Dunes the day before.  There weren't any.


The "star drains" we used were recommended by our agronomist Dave Wilber, who'd picked them up from my old mentor Walter Woods when they were both working on Kingsbarns . . . Walter had used them successfully on The Old Course, where there is a lot of underground drainage but you won't find a catch basin, either.  They aren't foolproof . . . we used perforated plastic pipe with the filtered sleeve, and those do tend to clog up after a few years, so you sometimes need to dig one up and replace it.  And in a handful of places that get extra soggy and aren't near a landing area, they have brought a drain cap to the surface.  But mostly, the system works.


Of course, it's not really fair to compare the drainage at Pacific Dunes or any true links course to what Jeff Brauer has been trying to describe.  While most people think of a links course as a series of ridges and dunes, for drainage purposes it is more correctly thought of as a series of drainage basins, large and small.  [The hole pictured above probably has twenty low spots; the ones in the foreground tend to end in the bunkers!] 


Plus, all of the ground is pretty sandy.  I don't think a lot of those drainage pockets at Pacific Dunes would be wet even if we hadn't put in any drainage at all, because the sand perks so well.  But sometimes there is sandstone not far underneath, and you never really know where unless you dig it up . . . so our drainage system was more a form of insurance, and so there is a pipe close by where Ken Nice's team can run a drain to if he finds they need one, without having to dig under a bunch of irrigation lines.  You can't create THAT from scratch on tougher soils, unless you are also sand-capping the whole course.


I've been working on a project in Florida this past year where we are reproducing realistic links contours using LIDAR data.  One of the main things I've learned in the process is that generally, our previous attempts have failed to get the contours to appear natural because we think too much about surface drainage. We're taught in school to build in at least 2% slope for surface drainage, to deliver the water efficiently to the drain inlets, but there are tons of spots on a links course that are less than that, which they can get away with because it's generally sandy.  So most of the imitation links courses you will see are TOO rumply and contrived in trying to make all the water move at 2%, as opposed to the big flatter pockets that exist in nature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,


Was the subsurface drainage catch basins and pipe, or french drains, i.e. perf pipe surrounded in gravel to the top of the trench?


My rule of thumb always was to handle surface drainage problems with catch basins, and subsurface drainage with french drains.  French drains are a typical go to for supers but it is far less efficient.  And personally, while many would go for french drains because they are hidden, it doesn't make design sense to purposely install something that is inefficient in the name of aesthetics or play.

I have forgotten the name of the system, but I've asked our superintendent via email.  I was originally told that they rely on Bernoulli's principal, but that's it.  Trenches were dug, pipes laid in, surface drains and small catch basins every so often.  This is the third year and so far to me, just a golfer, they seem to be doing the job quite well.  We used then on one old hole where the natural contours had been softened at lot, and on two new holes that had serious draining issues in certain places.

Carl,


I had to look that one up!  I have seen that kind of system a few times.  Personally, with drainage and a lot of other things (i.e., the design credit for Merion.....) I tended to rely on the simpler answer, i.e., gravity, in this case, to usually be the right answer.


I believe Tom's description of star drains is used quite often, even around catch basins that connect to pipe. Most of us would add extra gravel and pipe around the basin just to avoid the sogginess that often occurs around a basin as water collects.  And, TD is right that those systems do tend to clog over time and some fail completely.  I mean, water flows downhill with gravity, and what offers the least resistance - the open air in a catch basin or packed gravel with perhaps 25% pore space?  I am not surprised yours are working well after 3 years, but also wouldn't be surprised if they started slowing down in the next 3 years.


In 1979, I built a course next door to what is now Sand Valley. We found that the upper six inches of the sand had windblown silt and didn't perc well, but under it was 100 foot of sand.  At the time, my solution was to use drum barrels, cutting off the top and inserting a home made grate, to get the water through that layer.  None was connected to anything and it was still working last time I was there five years ago.  I think the EPA and others would probably frown on that solution today.

[Carl Johnson]

Jeff replies: "And, TD is right that those systems do tend to clog over time and some fail completely."

Again, as a layman, I'm drawn to that concern as well.  Maybe you do a lot of maintenance to keep them clean ($$$).  As I said, so far ours are working, but they are new, and as I look into the catch basis they appear to be clean.  It will be interesting to see how long they work.  It will be easy to tell when they no longer work.

[Tom_Doak]

It should be noted that on many links courses, there is really nowhere to run a system of catch basins and subsurface drainage pipes.  The course may be just a few feet above water table or even a few feet above sea level, and if there's not a burn, there is no handy exit point for the drainage system to drain to.  The system in St. Andrews pipes everything back to the Swilcan Burn, I think.


We're dealing with that at Cabot Highlands now, whether it's worth it to add drainage pipe after we have stripped all of the topsoil away and done our shaping on sand atop gravel.  Generally, if you just get the drainage straight down into the gravel, it's good to go and you don't need to pipe it somewhere.


It's also worth noting that a system of open catch basins that drain to a natural body of water, have the potential to pollute the water with fertilizers and chemicals that are washed off the fairway.  You're really supposed to cap those drains when you fertilize, to prevent that.  It's not nearly as much of a problem if the water is filtered through a foot or two of sand before it gets to the drains.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


It took me a while to grasp the environmental idea of draining water away from the natural outlets, but I understand the rationale.  I have calculated the potential runoff to size dry or wet detention areas that hold water until the sediment, including chemicals settle out.  It seems like it probably added some cost to most courses, and perhaps since you have to have that kind of pipe system going against nature in some cases, we got a little lax about adding catch basins for other design purposes. Once the pipe is in, adding a catch basin only costs a few extra hundreds of dollars.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:


You would not believe the amount of engineering that goes into that in Florida, where runoff water is very strictly monitored.  You have to give them a six-inch grading plan [or really, what they want now is a digital grading plan] so they can size the detention areas.  We had almost 20 acres of detention area for our 220-acre project.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()