OK, So Maybe Speed Doesn't Kill - But It Sure Can Hurt
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 their designs are inherently more imaginative
than their modern counterparts.
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 owners, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
