[Chris Hughes]

Given it's a classic course with an architect of note -- should the current architect-of-record be consulted before said changes are made?


 What say ye?

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Yes.


In fact every golf course should have it's mowing lines with the height of cut defined on a plan which must be adhered to.
Any changes to the plan should only be made at the top level (AGM) and with advice/input/explanation from the original architect or the chosen representative.


Too often I've seen original lines changed to suit maintenance staff, or the best players, or perceived cost cutting, which compromise the playing style or strategy of the course.


Such as narrowed landing area, narrowed fairways, semi rough up to the greens edge, semi rough round bunkers, narrowed entrance to greens, heights of cut altered, etc


Only for them to be changed back again the following season, after sometimes bitter discussion.


There's nothing wrong with changes if they bring improvement and general approvement, but usually mowing lines have had lot of thought and reasoning put into them at the conception of the course. At least refer to what the original reasoning was.

[Ally Mcintosh]

What John said.


Mowing lines and patterns have as much or more impact on the look and feel of a course as bunker styles and green designs.


They are material design decisions.


Trouble is clubs and greens committees don’t see it that way as changes can be executed for little to no cost by the green staff rather than by a construction crew on machinery.

[Thomas Dai]

The evolution of the line of least resistance.
Hopefully especially for somewhere newish or well known there should be sufficient aerial photos etc available that the course managers team can keep the mowing lines the same although who supervises whether or not they does is another matter especially when vested interest committees are involved.
These days clever tech allows extremely precise satellite location mapping and when this is linked to clever modern mowing etc machinery following architect intended mowing lines might be easier then in the past.
Still reckon sheep are the best mowers though. Their grazing produces the perfect height of cut/nibble for fairways.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

I noted this on my thread about maintenance.  Mowing lines have a huge impact on the architecture and how a course presents itself.  Mowing lines are one of the least expensive ways to impact change (positively and unfortunately negatively) on a golf course.  They are always one of the first things we talk about because they often can be addressed in house. 

[Chris Hughes]

Case closed.
Thanks fellas...

[Matt_Cohn]

Everything seems to reference narrow fairways with more rough. Any problems if the fairways are widened or areas are converted to short grass?

[Craig Sweet]

Height of cut defined in a plan that must be adhered to?  That's ridiculous.

[Chris Hughes]

Height of cut defined in a plan that must be adhered to?  That's ridiculous.

What's your logic here?


Hey, who are you suggesting should be "locked up"?

[Craig Sweet]

Chris, the height of cut is not static for several possible reasons.  HOC will be raised and lowered seasonally. HOC might be lowered or raised to deal with a turf issue.


https://www.usga.org/course-care/2013/08/fairway-and-rough-heights-vary-by-the-season-21474858685.html#:~:text=Lower%20mowing%20increases%20shoot%20tillering,further%20into%20the%20turf%20canopy.

[archie_struthers]

 


How about an architect not of "note".  I'm thinking if the architect was good and cares consult them about their thoughts. At the end of the day the SUPERINTENDENT is the guy (girl    ) who has to do the job daily and knows it the best. Here we go with conditions again.


Is mowing a material change to the golf course , I'm gonna say no.

[Chris Hughes]

Chris, the height of cut is not static for several possible reasons.  HOC will be raised and lowered seasonally. HOC might be lowered or raised to deal with a turf issue.


https://www.usga.org/course-care/2013/08/fairway-and-rough-heights-vary-by-the-season-21474858685.html#:~:text=Lower%20mowing%20increases%20shoot%20tillering,further%20into%20the%20turf%20canopy.

"...mowing lines with the height of cut defined on a plan..."

Obviously the length of the rough, or fairway cut, will vary marginally based on lots of factors...

...but my sense is when John mentions "mowing lines" in context with "height of cut" it's meant to delineate between rough & fairway cuts -- thereby determining width of the fairway -- which then dictates playing options/strategy for the hole to play as the architect intended. 

Hey, who are you suggesting should be locked up?

[Craig Sweet]

There are three things here...HOC, mowing lines (fairway, first cut, rough) and mow pattern.  The height of cut will vary through the season, the mowing lines should remain static, and the mow pattern (diagonal, two strip) generally changes (left to right...right to left) to avoid rippling that occurs when mowing in the same direction over and over again...Only one of these 3 is a "material change" in my opinion.

[Chris Hughes]

There are three things here...HOC, mowing lines (fairway, first cut, rough) and mow pattern.  The height of cut will vary through the season, the mowing lines should remain static, and the mow pattern (diagonal, two strip) generally changes (left to right...right to left) to avoid rippling that occurs when mowing in the same direction over and over again...Only one of these 3 is a "material change" in my opinion.

I presume mowing lines is the one you believe constitutes material change?

If so, that's what I meant in the original post -- I used "patterns" when maybe I should have used "lines".


Who are we locking up?

[Carl Johnson]

Given it's a classic course with an architect of note -- should the current architect-of-record be consulted before said changes are made?

 What say ye?

Chris, I think so, clearly, as you might guess.

[Matt Wharton]

If the club/course is currently working with an architect then yes, the architect should be consulted. Fairway width, contours, edges, and etc. are established by the architect and maintaining those established boundaries is important, and changes to those boundaries should require architect's approval. But there are times when just a subtle adjustment can make a vast improvement and most likely players will not notice. Depends on the experience and trust the members/owners have in their superintendent to always do what is best/right for the golf course.


When my previous course was preparing for the 2018 USGA Mid-Am and the USGA wanted us to alter some fairway widths we consulted with our architect before agreeing to all the changes. Not that we had to, but it was the right thing to do considering the nature of our long-standing relationship.


Of course, grass types play a huge role in the ease or difficulty of either major or minor alterations. If you have bermudagrass fairways and rough then making adjustments is quite simple. You either scalp it down to enlarge or stop mowing to shrink. In the case of a golf course with bentgrass fairways and bluegrass/fescue roughs an adjustment would require more than just a mower to accomplish.

[Mark_Fine]

By the way if I wasn’t clear before the answer to this thread’s question is Absolutely they can! 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()