Tommy,
Not much you can say that pisses me off, but using Mucci green means (to quote bugs t. bunny) this means war!
For the record, I too have recieved several emails, backing me up and adding that I am crazy for entering an argument with a madman who wouldn't know a "only where necessary" catch basin if it bit him in his considerable ass........and most wondered if you understood just how much you offended them by buddying up to them at GIS as if you were long lost pals after your personal attacks on them via this website.
What exactly did they "back you up on?" That qualified gca's might differ on the proper way to drain a particluar situation?
BTW, you say catch basins affect your strategy? Have you ever stood on a tee and said you wanted to "avoid the left side of the fw because of the basins?" I can see a cb near a green affecting the EXECUTION of a chips shot. It does happen. On the other hand, it may be worth that happening occaisionally if the value judgement of the gca is that the hole would benefit from Ross style humps around the green on a clay soil site.
But, if you want to talk drainage, here is my take on the photos you posted, and more on my "beef" with your posts.
As mentioned, you have used drainage to make a (tired) point that you don't like modern shaping.
I say this, because frankly, while I applaud you giving specific examples, the Jim Engh photos you posted don't have many visible catch basins that would tie your shaping point to use of drainage. That punch bowl green doesn't have any basins around it, even though it might be more practical if it did (see Ross comments about PB greens in Golf has Never Failed Me) So, how does it relate to catch basins and shaping?
Second, you post an open meadow hole from your fave C and C that appears to not have housing in the background, and is of gentle slopes, etc. and a steep valley hole from less favored Jim Engh, which will likely have housing above it. They obviously have vastly different drainage needs, because the Engh hole will have to deal with a lot of drainage fast. in that case, its hard to make intelligent comparisons.
That is evident from your last post, which rants on without discernable logic, flow, or thought. But to answer your question, I MAY have put more drainage in both the holes you show, with less in the C and C hole and more in the Engh hole, had I been the one designing them. In the valley hole in particular, I may have added basins between the side slope and fw to make sure excessive drainage did not reach the short grass. I would have added a cart path curb to keep large rains from washing down the punch bowl on to the green. I probably would have added at least one fw catch basin given the slope and length of flow in that fw to reduce concentrated flow. I would have tried to keep it out of the main landing area. Of course, all this is just theoretical, based on one photo, but is for illustrative purposes only.
Had I made that value judgement I presume that the hole would drain better and have firmer and faster conditions than a valley hole w/o such drainage (faster after a rain) Of course, I also would have a few more unsighty catch basins.
Is that value judgement right or wrong? I guess it depends. One Owner might decide he liked having the course in top condition sooner or appreciate the probable quicker grow in. Another would put up with the problems to avoid those basins, perhaps paying for it through more sod or whatever.
So where's the argument? I can accept that you prefer simpler shaping, as I have said before. But, there are professional considerations that make cbs necessary, which you have said. Are there examples of over use? Of course there are. Have most of the courses you consider to be exemplars of minimalist drainage added drains of many types over the years? I guarantee you they have.
I disagree strongly with Tony, BTW. For my money, building it right the first time is far more cost effective than rebuilding and adding parts of it a year later. (my mom and dad always told me, "If its worth doing, its worth doing right the first time) To me, a profesional golf course architect is someone who can anticipate and engineer a golf course that opens with minimal problems. We don't catch them all, of course. No one is perfect.
On the other hand, if you can't figure out drainage, you are really just playing in the dirt, aren't you? And your posts are the equivalent of playing in the dirt. While the amateur gca is largely concerned with the fun stuff, and can wish away the reality of drainage in his fantasy designs, the professional is under no such illusions, even if some of us would tend to one type of drainage over another.
I offer all of the above as one gca's perspective, based on my sole experience. However, in talking with other gca's I believe that most gain more respect for the power of uncontrolled drainage (esp. in valley holes) as time goes on, as their courses and owners experience problems and they seek to get better in their design work.
So, Tommy, I admit that you are probably one qualified to criticise gcas, because I am pretty sure you have never screwed up drainage on a golf course, having never attempted to create drainage on a golf course.
I had your minimal cb theory at one time, and really, still do. I have two projects under construction with vastly different drainage budgets-one is gently rolling the other flat, so they have different needs. Both have close to the minimum (whatever that is) basins, IMHO.
I am just trying to convey what my experience has been in a variety of climates and soils. Nothing more, nothing less. If anyone disagrees, they are free to do so, or to not read my posts. Hopefully, someone with an interest in gca has learned something though. I certainly apologize to anyone offended by, or simply bored with my posts here.