[Steve Curry]

The club makers have already addressed this and if one simply eats wheaties and work out they may overcome.  Maybe that I have old New England rough with its multitude of grasses the Rotary doesn't seem to change the variety.  But they do cut better and reduce time.  We also shred all our leaves with them.  

Steve

[TEPaul]

"Couldn't an attachment be added to a rotary mower to make the grass lie down a bit, after it's been mowed?"

Neil:

Obviously rotary mowers could do that if they simply had something attached to them that would have the same effect on the grass that the bed knife does which sits underneath the gang mower's blades. What that bed knife does is simply flatten the grass more than the rotary mower does (which has no bed knife).

[TEPaul]

Neil:

I get the same basic effect that's being discussed here when I mow the fields and paddocks on my farm. I have a rotary mower and it does cut the grass in such a way that it stands up. However, some of the grass does get flattened down in such a way that's being discussed here by the effect of the bed knife on gang mowers. How does a portion of the grass get flattened down when I mow with a rotary mower? By the weight and width of the tires on my tractor!!  

[Mike_Young]

TE,
I agree with Mike McNulty regarding the effect of rotary vs. reels.  And I respectfully disagree with the assessment of the bedknife pushing the grass down.  The height of cut for a reel mower is determined by the rollers or on some by the wheels and rollers.  Now maybe the rollers push it down.  weile (grooved) rollers can eliminate some of that.  But anyway, I see the problem as too much grass.  If we are to continue to water, fertilize and manage rough as we do, it needs to be cut shorter.  The club can be stopped by short thick grass much quicker than long whispy grass. JMHO.
Mike

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Are you calling a "reel" mower the one that has a bed-knife? And if so are "reel" mowers the only ones with rollers? As far as rotary mowers go, they don't have rollers do they?

When we're all on the same page with the definitions of this machinery it seems like what Mike McNulty was talking about is simply those mowers which don't have much of anything to push the grass down, effectively flattening it like the old gang mowers did.

[Craig Sweet]

A rotary has a flat blade that spins around just like your lawn mower at home.  A "reel" mower is just what it says. Reels with several (5-7??) blades.

I believe reel mowers utilize bed knifes and rollers to stand the grass blades up so the reels can cut them. Speed is very important with a reel mower...both the speed of the rotating blades, but also the machine propelling the reels. Slower speeds create a terrible cut because the grass blades are pushed over, rather than stood up.

Gang mowers pulling a gaggle of reels will just by their nature push the grass blades over unless there's a very good set of rollers and bed knifes. However, in my experience the gang mowers used to mow rough are often older and not exactly precision cutters of grass.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Most of the new rotary mowers do in fact have rear rollers. I'm not a fan of the rollers as they cause stripping and I think we already have enough stripping. You can take off the rollers and add wheels that reduce the stripping. The reason the rotaries cut so even and the grass is so erect is because the horizontal turning of the blade causes a vacuum that stands the grass up. That's what gives the turf the erect look and in most cases a very nice cut. Like Craig wrote, the gangs just didn't cut as well and you didn't have such a finished look. Reel mowers set at 2 inches+ just don't cut that good. Reels work great at low heights, but at longer cuts they don't get all the grass and they will lay the turf over if it gets longer then the gap between blades. Which is why rough reel mowers have fewer blades, usually 5-7, then greens mowers that usually have 10+ blades depending on the make.
I'm in total agreement with Mike Y. The change in rough conditions has less to do with mower type and a lot more to do with how we manage the rough turf.

[Steve Curry]

Don,

I'm with you no stripped rough, it looks gaudy.

Steve

[Joe Hancock]

Don and Steve,

AMEN!

Preach on, Brothers!!!!!

Striped roughs are almost the epitome of how far down the wrong maintenance road we as industry have gone.

Joe

[Steve Curry]

Joe,

I see fully stripped courses and it reminds me of Escher's art.  I much prefer a natural look.

Steve

[wsmorrison]

This has been an informative thread, glad to have the outstanding superintendents we have on site participate in this way.  We sure do benefit from their expertise.

I belong to a 1926 Flynn and the mowing patterns are too much.  The fairways have wide cross-hatching and then a perfectly straight line across the approach and smaller cross-hatching up to the green.  The rough in some areas are patterned as well.  They sure demonstrate mowing ability but to me it is a complete waste of resources.  

I wish the committee (which doesn't put in the required study) could be convinced otherwise.  The past green chairman (one year in office) really understood classic architecture because he was willing to put the time into learning.  The political process rewarded those that helped get the present regime into office without regard to ability or willingness to put in the effort to become capable.  Too bad.    

On a classic era course the up and back look looks best.  Part of the reason for this is that courses with great topography look too busy with modern mowing patterns and the ground movement is too evident.  I would counsel green committees to eave something to the golfer's eye and mind and quit making it so overt.  

How much time and $ would be saved by an up and back mowing patter, the gang mower look, as opposed to detailed cross-hatching?

[Craig Sweet]

I think you would find it is quicker and thus cheaper to mow "up and back"....fewer turns required.

[BCrosby]

A brief note.

I bought "The Hogan Mystique" this weekend. It is a collection of photogrpahs of Hogan at the '59 Open at Winged Foot. Terrific pictures.

Several photos are of Hogan addressing his ball in the fairway. I was amazed to see that in each case almost a quarter of the ball was hidden by grass. It seemed to be "nested" in the fairway grass.

It struck me that the fairway heights at Winged Foot in '59 were not a heck of a lot shorter than the first cut of rough on modern courses.

Anyone else have the book? Am I wrong?

Bob  

[Marc Haring]

Several photos are of Hogan addressing his ball in the fairway. I was amazed to see that in each case almost a quarter of the ball was hidden by grass. It seemed to be "nested" in the fairway grass.

It struck me that the fairway heights at Winged Foot in '59 were not a heck of a lot shorter than the first cut of rough on modern courses.

Anyone else have the book? Am I wrong?

Bob  

Great observation. I think we all need to get together and set up a pressure group to raise the fairway height of cut all over the world so as to bring back the original strategy of the great masterpieces. We can call the pressure group SHOC. (strategic height of cut)

What's the point in restoration if you don't restore the heights of cut?

[BCrosby]

Marc -

I agree, but it's not just a case of restoration for the sake of restoration.

My guess is that the maintenance of fairways has changed substantially over the years and that older courses played to much longer fairway grasses than we are acustomed to. All this is important to reinstate because:

- it reduces the spin tha can be put on approaches and, therefore, puts many strategic features back in the equation;

- it would limit distance somewhat; and

- reduce the need for 4'' penal roughs. In fact, the whole distinction between rough and fairway would become less important and that's a good thing.

Bob

[wsmorrison]

Marc,

Interesting point.  But I don't think anyone wants to see the return of all grass heights on golf courses especially on greens.  If greens were to revert back to what they were in earlier periods, it wouldn't be good at all.  I like many of the agronomic advances and like Jim Finegan has said, this has made courses better than they were!  Hugh Wilson, Flynn, Piper, Oakley and others were working hard to develop and use new strains for golf couses and I think they'd be pleasantly surprised with the advances made to date.

You mentioned the possibility of fairways going back to higher cutting.  This sounds like it could be done.  But wouldn't this lessen the "fast" effect if they were kept firm and somewhat dry?  I think I like best wide fairways that are kept firm and fast.  

Different grasses are being used today, certainly on fairways and greens--but I guess rough as well.  They probably need to be maintained differently.  Are they bred for low cutting heights for instance?  

[wsmorrison]

"- reduce the need for 4'' penal roughs. In fact, the whole distinction between rough and fairway would become less important and that's a good thing."

Makes me think of the practices of the old Augusta National and TOC.  I think that's a good thing too  

[TEPaul]

What a minute! I certainly wouldn't be in favor of returning the cut height of fairways to what they may've been in the 1920s or 1930s until a whole lot more research is put into this subject.

Let's at least find out all the resaons why were they cut to those heights back then! Was that as low as they could cut them back then? Is that the reason? Well, if it was we know that doesn't apply today. Were the types of grasses used today available back then? Of course not.

Philly C.C.'s Mike McNulty who was the inspiration for this thread has Princeville bent on his fairways. A lot of us up here have L93 bent on our fairways. If he, or the club decided today for some reason to cut those Princeville bent fairways at 1/2 or 3/4 of an inch let's at first find out what that would do to the grass.

If it requires restoring some old grass strains from the 1920s or 1930s to some of our fairways simply to accomplish this kind of higher cut I sure wouldn't want to pay for the regrassing process of the course's fairways just to do that.

[Steve Curry]

Wayne "How much time and $ would be saved by an up and back mowing patter, the gang mower look, as opposed to detailed cross-hatching?"

None, the look is great but given the demands of today's expectations more time is required in preventing the inevitable layover of turf my consistently mowing on the same pattern.  The traditional cut somewhat quicker to accomplish than the cross-cut but it demands more brushing and verti-cutting to compensate.  But, truth be told I have started doing more of these practices regardless of whether I am cross or traditional cutting fairways as it appeases both ends of the golfing spectrum.

Steve

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()