Raymond Hearn Articles
OK, SO MAYBE SPEED DOESN’T KILL
-
BUT IT SURE CAN HURT
Green Speed, That Is
By Raymond Hearn,
ASGCA
It is not difficult to understand our
collective fondness for old-time, “classic” golf courses. Part of
this is simply a comfort level associated with any familiar
presence. Another aspect of our appreciation of older courses is
the suspicion that, due to the absence of heavy earth-moving
equipment and motorized golf carts, their designs are inherently
more imaginative than their modern counterparts.
(The phenomenon does not apply only to
golf courses: Asked to choose, sight unseen, between comparably
sized houses – one built a hundred years ago, the other just
completed – respondents in a recent survey overwhelmingly picked the
older house. Typical of the reasons cited for the choice were that
it was likely to be better built and have “more character.”)
Golf course architects often
acknowledge this attraction to classical features by including pot
bunkers, saw-toothed bunkers and other throwback elements in their
otherwise modern designs. But while “classic” seems by definition a
good thing, not all the individual features loosely associated with
the term are desirable in the context of the way golf is played
today. An especially bad fit is in trying to combine the more
drastic contours of old-style greens with the much-faster putting
speeds we have come to expect.
I say “especially bad” because the
problem is so prevalent. In fact, in my 20-plus years as a
practicing golf course architect, I estimate that seven out of 10
courses I have had the good fortune to play, visit, or consult for
have shown some symptoms of this contour-versus-speed syndrome.
Sometimes the problem is confined to a single putting surface;
sometimes it is evident in a half-dozen cases.
The complexity and severity of the
dilemma also vary widely, but its nature is fundamentally the same:
The greens no longer “work” because their precipitous slopes were
never intended to be combined with today’s “normal” green speeds of
roughly 10, sometimes more, on the Stimpmeter.
You would anticipate this problem in
the case of a course built at the turn of the 20th century but –
given the tendency in recent years to equate pure speed on the
greens with “quality” – but it also rears its head at much younger
courses, a kind of unintended consequence: In the face of
exponential improvements in agronomy and mowing equipment,
maintaining the integrity of the playing experience has in this
respect become more difficult.
Thus, many green complexes once were
cut to heights and otherwise maintained to generate speeds on the
Stimpmeter – invented in the early 1900s and in increasingly wide
use ever since – of six to eight. Today, many superintendents find
themselves in a bind between hewing to that standard and acceding to
customer preferences – members in the case of private clubs, patrons
at resorts and other public facilities. Striking a harmonious
balance is impossible without some sort of remedial action.
Instead, many club managers and green
committee chairmen reluctantly – and erroneously -- conclude that
the best solution is just to tolerate a few bad greens. In rare
instances this may be true; in many more situations, however, this
conclusion is based on misperceptions concerning what fixing the
contour-versus-speed problem would entail, including:
• the construction will cause
significant disruption in play
• remodeled greens will differ from
unaltered ones in their receptivity to approach shots
• putting speeds will be substantially
different on the “new” greens compared to the old ones
• greens that have been remodeled will
require extensive new maintenance practices
• the original architect’s design
intent will be lost in the remodeling
• remodeled greens will look
incongruous in relation to existing ones
Though these apprehensions sound
logical and may have a grain of truth, my view is that they range
from exaggerated to downright false. In short, a well-conceived
remodeling project is virtually certain to be the superior answer.
For starters, the correct redesign and
construction methodology will complete the green remodeling process
in 10 days or less, while the grow-in time needed for the sod to
re-root and “take” may be as little as 7 to 10 days. True, a
temporary green must be used during this interval, but it’s much
shorter than most people anticipate and well worth the trade-off.
What’s more, a discerning design and
construction strategy will in due time ensure that the remodeled
green receives incoming shots and putts like the other greens on the
course -- but now with contours in synch with the desired green
speed. One such successful strategy is to use the course’s existing
topdressing and Greensmix in the new “tested” Greensmix that will
perform to USGA Green Section Specifications. The use of a USGA-approved
soils testing laboratory, as we strongly encourage our clients to
do, guarantees adherence to these specifications.
This approach contrasts with that
advocated by many design and agronomic consultants today, who
recommend either using a course’s existing topdressing and Greensmix
or completely replacing the Greensmix with new materials prepared
off-site.
I would like to add a third option.
Reusing the former Greensmix, which in many cases is just old
topsoil ‘push – up’ greens, may result in a hard, compacted green
surface in the remodeled green if the old mix or topsoil contained a
significant amount of fine particles, typically clay, silt, or very
fine sand. The resulting question I frequently hear is: “My old
‘push-up’ greens worked before in terms of drainage and how they
held a shot, why wouldn’t they work again?”
My response is that the older greens
commonly developed small soil fractures and fissures over time,
which in turn helped minimize compaction and allowed proper
infiltration and percolation to occur. This would be lost over the
first several years after remodeling in the remodeled greens, as the
replacement of the existing mix would compact to a higher degree.
It will take time and some significant aeration and aggressive
topdressing practices to reduce this compaction and regain the deep
soil fractures and fissures that were once present. If you can put
up with the compaction for the first several years after the
remodeling while educating members or public play then this is a
viable option.
Another proposed solution I regularly
hear -- to just replace the old Greensmix with new USGA approved
Greensmix. This option leads to remodeled greens that receive
incoming shots and putt much differently than the layout’s unaltered
greens. This tack may also require dramatically different
maintenance practices relative to original unaltered greens. I
often tell superintendents to avoid this option unless they commit
to a long term remodeling program which entails new USGA Greensmix
being incorporated into all the remaining greens over no less then a
3 year time frame. If you can put up with greens that vary in how
they putt and receive incoming shots for approximately 3 years after
the initial remodeling begins while educating members or public play
then this is a viable option. I am sad to report that many
superintendents often find that members or public golfers
significantly complain about the difference in the new green’s
playability compared to the old unaltered greens during this time
frame.
My company utilizes both methodologies
described above and at times utilize a hybrid of the two. We also
believe in off-site mixing using new Greensmix but while using a
portion of the existing Greensmix in this new Greensmix being
prepared. The new Greensmix must meet USGA Green Section
Specifications by an approved soils testing laboratory in terms of
overall testing requirements. Accordingly, the newly remodeled
green(s) may not receive shots and putt exactly the same as other,
unaltered greens. But they will much more closely approximate the
receptivity and putting characteristics than would be the case using
the two other strategies. And our experience confirms that the
nominal expense and effort require to implement this hybridized
methodology pays off in enhancing the golf experience. The problem
with this methodology is that it will only work when remodeling
portions of a few greens and you will need a source to start with
i.e. a portion of a practice putting green or nursery green to
borrow old Greensmix from to gather and transport off site to the
company doing the mixing.
We also suggest recycling sod from the
existing green and collar, where possible, to promote continuity
between the old green and the remodeled edition. In cases where the
remodeled green is larger then the former existing green, we
advocate using sod from the collar for the green’s expansion, then
gradually bringing down the height of this sod over time to the
green’s mowing height. We recommend using this collar height sod in
the back of the green while the existing green sod from the back of
the green can be used in the remodeled area. This methodology
minimizes player disturbance as most players are short, left, or
right in their approaches to a green versus long. Sod for the
collar can then come from existing turf at the beginning of the
fairway, then incrementally brought down in mowing height to that of
the existing unaltered collar grass.
Naturally, special attention to
maintenance issues is required initially to nurture newly planted or
transplanted turf. Nonetheless, a comprehensive approach to the
remodeling process will produce remodeled greens that soon blend in
– esthetically and in terms of the maintenance they demand – with
the course’s other green complexes.
Always more debatable than purely
agronomic issues is the question of adulterating or compromising the
original architect’s design intent. A perfectly legitimate concern,
it inevitably leads to other questions: How important is this really
to the membership or the regular patrons at the course being
considered? Does the original designer enjoy a reputation that, in
its own right, makes his work worth preserving? Can his perceived
design intent be reconciled with the game’s modern-day evolution and
the course’s overall goals?
An object lesson from our portfolio
involving an anonymous private club in the eastern U.S. helps
elucidate the delicate balance for which to strive. Designed by the
legendary Willie Park, its heritage is beyond dispute. Still, with
27,000 rounds per year, the superintendent was struggling to
maintain healthy turf conditions, particularly on a par 3 green
where 70 percent of the 5,000-square-foot putting surface had grades
of four to eight percent, sometimes more, while the remaining 30
percent had more comfortable contours of one to four percent.
Similar proportions existed on four other greens and, as the
superintendent was required to maintain putting speeds of 11 to 12,
these were places where any three-putt was deemed a good effort.
The superintendent reasoned that a
putting surface with at least 4,500 square feet of additional
surface in the one-to-four-percent-slope range would present a much
more reasonable and fair test of golf, not to mention maintenance.
The membership’s concern was that Park’s “false front” of five-plus
percent – a trademark design element in these particular original
designs and the overall challenge of the green-- would be lost in
the redesign.
My company’s redesign included an
increase to 5,800 square feet in overall green surface -- an
additional 800 square feet, in other words. The new surface area
maintained a gentler but still visually apparent and challenging
“false front” on a four-to-seven-percent grade, while 4,500 square
feet of the green now exhibits an interesting variety of one- to
four-percent contours with modified but still preserved challenge in
the three to four percent range. The superintendent gained 3,000
square feet of new “cupping” area to more evenly distribute play and
related wear and tear. For their part, the membership was happy to
see the additional one to four percent cupping areas of the
remodeled green while the “false front” to the green and the overall
challenge was still preserved.
Granted, from a purely mathematical
standpoint 6,500 square feet might have made more sense given the
27,000-round volume on the course. However, Park’s greens, apropos
of their era, are generally small, and 6,500 square feet would have
constituted the proverbial “sore thumb.” Putting surfaces on the
course’s other par 3s average 5,000 square feet – a dimension at
which the superintendent was able to maintain top-quality
conditioning of the bent/poa greens.
“Will the remodeled green look out of
place?” An excellent question, one that goes to the heart of the
golf course architect’s design philosophy, appreciation of the
game’s history and traditions, and critical judgment. For every
sensitive interpretation of an original designer’s concepts, there
is, regrettably, an atrocity – the equivalent of a red crayon stripe
across a classical canvas, often made in the name of “progress” but
conspicuous in its affront to context. Thus choosing a golf course
architect with significant classical design restoration experience
is a must in order to maximize the potential to harmoniously blend
the classical look of the restored, renovated, or remodeled green to
that of the other existing classical green complexes that have
remained unaltered.
On the opposite side of the ledger is
blind obeisance to the original architect’s drawings and exact
specifications, some of which may be impossible or undesirable to
preserve. Classical design elements are generally worth
maintaining, but in a few cases existing green design is of poor
quality and does not possess any attributes that warrant restoring.
Golden Age golf course architects had bad days, too, after all.
Fortunately, modern design software and
its three-dimensional display capabilities allows architects and
clients alike to make informed choices about putting speeds,
contours, what to keep, what to tweak.
In closing, don’t hold on to greens
that don’t “work” with your current putting speeds. Creative and
carefully conceived redesign, coupled with a prudent and timely
construction methodology, will yield the desired results with
minimal disruption to play, as well as lowest-possible cost and
emotional travail.
To revert to the aforementioned
residential housing analogy, you may prefer the 100-year-old house,
but that doesn’t mean you will be foregoing central heat and air
conditioning. Faster putting speeds have generally added intrigue
to the already-intriguing game of golf, and this seems unlikely to
change any time soon unfortunately. Neither will our devotion to
the game’s history. A reasonable synthesis of the two is achievable
as long as we watch our slopes and speeds.
The author, Raymond Hearn (ray@rhgd.com), is a
practicing golf course architect and a member of the American
Society of Golf Course Architects. His office is located in
Holland, Michigan.
|
