News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Peter Pallotta

Re: No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2018, 10:36:12 PM »
"...When properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago...".

Another thread for another time by other posters, Shel, but this line makes me wonder who *today's* Paul Voykins are, and what ideas that are now in the air -- but are basically being ignored, like PV's were -- will in 50 years time become the norm.

It wasn't like PV was talking to idiots or amateurs, he was talking to trained (and presumably dedicated) professionals; but every era has its conceits and conventions, and if we don't recognize that *we* have the same 'constraints' on our thinking as predecessors had on theirs, it will indeed take 50 years for a good idea, maybe the best of ideas, to take hold.

Anyway, definitely for another time and for other posters
   

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses
« Reply #51 on: August 17, 2018, 05:27:23 AM »
In my experience no mo areas or so called native aren't often a good rough where one can find a ball and play.  My guess is that its more difficult than it might seem to keep these areas playable.  In fact, its often the case that even in sandy soil these sort of areas are very unfriendly. I think for many courses, the decision has to be made if play is intended from these areas and if not, their use anywhere near lines of play should be very limited...especially in front of tees if we are trying to attract women to the game. 


On the other hand, what sort of rough existed prior to the native trend?  In my experience, this wasn't/isn't very good either!  It comes down to one's beliefs about golf.  Some think 35 yards from the centre of fairways is fair game for lost balls, others 50, others 60.  Much depends on the site.  Is there wind about?  Is the site hilly?  Is the course f&f?  Are there blind shots?  You can add probably 5-10 yards of width for each affirmative answer if the fairways are are the standard 30-35 yards wide.  The width doesn't have to be fairway, it can be low rough.


There are no easy solutions, though it is time more clubs experiment with rough eating animals.  There is more than the issue of rough being munched, its the way rough is eaten which makes a course look for more natural than most stands of native (which is ironically often grass which isn't native) could ever look.  The playablity is also effected in a way which is completely random...that is heaven to me.


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Ashridge, Kennemer, de Pan, Blackmoor, Eindhoven, Hilversumche, Royal Ostend & Alnmouth

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses
« Reply #52 on: August 17, 2018, 02:05:04 PM »
Let's talk history, at least in the USA.  During the 60's and 70's, wall to wall green maintained turf was the ideal largely inspired by color tv's Masters coverage.  It was often referred to as the Masters Syndrome.  In 1976, Paul Voykin, who was in the midst of a 48 year tenure as Superintendent at Briarwood CC, published an article in the Greens' Section Record and gave a talk to the superintendents association entitle Over Grooming Is Overspending.  PV suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was unnecessary and costly.  He also suggested that significant benefits relating to beauty and the environment would follow. If you look at the article, the dollars involved compared to today are laughably small.


PV's talk did not result in a rush to naturalizing golf courses but over time the sheer logic of his position has taken hold.  Certainly there are instances where the practice is taken to the extreme.  I concede that significant forced carries over impenetrable gunk should be avoided.  There is also a level of skill, often developed via trial and error, in developing the appropriate density of naturalized areas. At Briarwood we learned that in planting fescue, we needed to use less seed per square foot than was recommended to achieve the desired look and feel.  But I suggest that when properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago.  They save significant amounts of money.  They add beauty to the course and make it appear less artificial.  They create a better habitat for wildlife.  As we have added natural areas, more small animals have a place to live.  This attracts other animals and birds so that,for example, we now have nesting Hawks living on our grounds.  .  I concede that there are a few more delays looking for potentially lost balls, although not nearly to the degree suggested by Jeff.  But I suggest that, properly placed, these areas add far more than they take away through occasional delays caused by extremely errant shots.  I know that our membership feels the same.



Shelly, (if I may call you that!)


First, a personal Paul Voykin story.  Dick Nugent once sent a 25 year old me over to BW in his stead, unannounced, which displeased them. Dick would deduct and hour from his fee for a good country club lunch, so we toured the course and then had lunch. The committee ordered some wonderful sounding stuff, but when the waiter got around to me, Paul said, "The grilled cheese is good here."  I proceeded to order the grilled cheese, LOL>


I remember that article, and when I first started my business in TX, found a few master plans, where the property had the room to take turf out of play.  Few ever did, from memory.  It is more in vogue now.


As to how many balls get lost, there is more info out there now as to shot dispersion, and I will stand by my stats.  I have played my own courses, often with triple row irrigation, and about 70 yard wide play corridors and find at least one member of the group (and these are B players, not D players) finds the junk at that width on every full length tee shot hole......and I mean every hole.  I started interpolating shot dispersion data to guess what it would take to half and quarter that.


Obviously, a private club with more A and B vs. C and D players can trend to the narrower without as much concern as to speed of play, even though I not all clubs are made up of better players.  On a public course, better to err on the turf side vs. the native side when in doubt.  For almost any course, to "hit it, find it, and hit it again" requires about 75-80 yards between the trees/natives about 150-225 off the tee, narrower at the tee and flaring out to that width.  Even then, I have been taken to task by Ken Moun here repeatedly as not providing enough width.


In the field, even if using that data as a guideline, every hole is a unique retrofit project, considering place in round, hole length and features, topo, wind direction, ground features, existing sprinkler system and ease of expansion if needed, etc.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 02:07:03 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses
« Reply #53 on: August 17, 2018, 02:25:47 PM »
Let's talk history, at least in the USA.  During the 60's and 70's, wall to wall green maintained turf was the ideal largely inspired by color tv's Masters coverage.  It was often referred to as the Masters Syndrome.  In 1976, Paul Voykin, who was in the midst of a 48 year tenure as Superintendent at Briarwood CC, published an article in the Greens' Section Record and gave a talk to the superintendents association entitle Over Grooming Is Overspending.  PV suggested that maintaining out of the way areas was unnecessary and costly.  He also suggested that significant benefits relating to beauty and the environment would follow. If you look at the article, the dollars involved compared to today are laughably small.


PV's talk did not result in a rush to naturalizing golf courses but over time the sheer logic of his position has taken hold.  Certainly there are instances where the practice is taken to the extreme.  I concede that significant forced carries over impenetrable gunk should be avoided.  There is also a level of skill, often developed via trial and error, in developing the appropriate density of naturalized areas. At Briarwood we learned that in planting fescue, we needed to use less seed per square foot than was recommended to achieve the desired look and feel.  But I suggest that when properly done, naturalized areas provide the benefits that Paul Voykin touted more than 50 years ago.  They save significant amounts of money.  They add beauty to the course and make it appear less artificial.  They create a better habitat for wildlife.  As we have added natural areas, more small animals have a place to live.  This attracts other animals and birds so that,for example, we now have nesting Hawks living on our grounds.  .  I concede that there are a few more delays looking for potentially lost balls, although not nearly to the degree suggested by Jeff.  But I suggest that, properly placed, these areas add far more than they take away through occasional delays caused by extremely errant shots.  I know that our membership feels the same.



Shelly, (if I may call you that!)


First, a personal Paul Voykin story.  Dick Nugent once sent a 25 year old me over to BW in his stead, unannounced, which displeased them. Dick would deduct and hour from his fee for a good country club lunch, so we toured the course and then had lunch. The committee ordered some wonderful sounding stuff, but when the waiter got around to me, Paul said, "The grilled cheese is good here."  I proceeded to order the grilled cheese, LOL>


I remember that article, and when I first started my business in TX, found a few master plans, where the property had the room to take turf out of play.  Few ever did, from memory.  It is more in vogue now.


As to how many balls get lost, there is more info out there now as to shot dispersion, and I will stand by my stats.  I have played my own courses, often with triple row irrigation, and about 70 yard wide play corridors and find at least one member of the group (and these are B players, not D players) finds the junk at that width on every full length tee shot hole......and I mean every hole.  I started interpolating shot dispersion data to guess what it would take to half and quarter that.


Obviously, a private club with more A and B vs. C and D players can trend to the narrower without as much concern as to speed of play, even though I not all clubs are made up of better players.  On a public course, better to err on the turf side vs. the native side when in doubt.  For almost any course, to "hit it, find it, and hit it again" requires about 75-80 yards between the trees/natives about 150-225 off the tee, narrower at the tee and flaring out to that width.  Even then, I have been taken to task by Ken Moun here repeatedly as not providing enough width.


In the field, even if using that data as a guideline, every hole is a unique retrofit project, considering place in round, hole length and features, topo, wind direction, ground features, existing sprinkler system and ease of expansion if needed, etc.
Jeff,
Really good post; thank you.
I like the 80 yard figure beginning at 150 or so.  Likely due to 4 decades in the high school business, I always visualize football fields, and from 200 yards away the 50 yard line sideline to sideline wouldn't look very wide at all.
It will be interesting to see what happens after January 1st, when courses can red stake areas without regard to water.  Whether heavily wooded, or native grassed, or heavily sloped, this should speed play and still preserve the advantage that better players have.  It's a long overdue rule change, IMO, and I'd think/hope guys in your profession, as well as superintendents, would be given some additional creative freedom with that option added.  I hope so, anyway.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

John Emerson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2018, 09:12:52 PM »
One of, if not the the biggest, problems with native/no-mow areas is the grass species and cultivar selection.  When courses are built with native areas in mind 3 issues should be addressed: 1) these pre determined areas should be planted with fine rescues (chewing, red, sheep etc..) 2) the irrigation patterns of surrounding heads need to be changed to part circle in order for the native/no-mow areas to receive ZERO irrigation water!! 3) NO MORE FERTILIZER!!! Water and fertilizer promotes lush leaf growth and the is a nightmare for golfers....more lush leaves = bigger canopy to hide your ball!! :(
The fine fescues are shorter growing, “bunch/clump” type grasses.  They are extremely less penal than the tall fescues and bluegrasses. They don’t create as severe a canopy due to growth and fine leaf blade characteristics.


And if these areas are an after thought then they should be very carefully thought out.  Again, the irrigation patterns must be changed.  The normal landing areas and distances need to be known in order to keep this area very wide!!!
“There’s links golf, then everything else.”

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: No Mow Areas should be eliminated on most courses
« Reply #55 on: August 18, 2018, 09:58:15 AM »
John,
Well stated!   :) :)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back