[Jon Wiggett]

Reading the thread about wetting agent got me thinking about the way golf course greenkeeping and design has gone in the last 40 or so years. In Britain up until the 1970’s many golf courses were quite. They therefore suffered less traffic damage that required growth to repair it and the greenkeepers were able to work on the course without having to get out of the way of as many gruops of players as before. This led to several things:


1.   Grass grew slower meaning it was not necessary to cut it as frequently meaning that fairways could be wider, greens mown from hand (a must until 1970) and playing areas required less water and fertiliser.

2.   This in turn meant that it needed less greenkeepers, less products used on the course meaning the costs were kept down.

3.   In turn you had healthier turf meaning less desease and better playing conditions in the winter (although of course very few people actually played in the winter

  As the use of fertiliser increased in the 70’s chasing the ‘great god green’ as Jim Arthur would put this led to increased cutting regimes meaning smaller playing areas as clubs could not afford to employ more greenkeepers and with more watering required to premote more growth the loss of F&F and good winter golfing conditions.

As the amount of play increased the extra revenue was used to employ more greenkeepers to make up for time lost during waiting for golfers. Also club facilities were improved and extended to cope with the extra volume of players.

To return fully to the F&F of the pre 70’s is very difficult for many clubs as they do not have the room to extend the playing areas and many modern courses have not been designed with this in mind. Indeed for many clubs it can only be achieved through machanical aeration through out the year which is very unpopular with many golfers.

What are then the awnsers to this problem in terms of philosophy of the course management and what can GCAs do in their design work to help alleviate this problem?.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'm a member of a club in Pennsylvania designed to play firm and fast.  Wide fairways of bent.

We opened in 2003, and the fairways were anything but firm and fast for the first couple of years.

But we hired a professional crew that comes in and does a blitzkrieg aerification in one or two days.  Tees and fairways.  Really took out a lot of thatch and got oxygen into the roots and soil.

After two sessions, the conditions are vastly improved.  

[Marc Haring]

Interesting post Jon. I see what you're saying. Times have changed!

I agree, F&F is really not that practical these days. I remember some of those old greenkeepers talking about how they used to cut the greens with push mowers. When you had to do that, the last thing they wanted was the grass to grow. And the golfers with all that austerity weren’t much into splashing out on new equipment and irrigation systems. Having said that, the firmest greens I’ve ever encountered were at Eastlake in Atlanta on a wet February but they did it through new strain bents, subair systems and a limitless budget to carry out all the thatch reduction operations they needed. But although they were firm, there was no loss of colour.

There’s another factor as well. How many superintendents have got the motivation to go for F&F when they’ll get a ton of grief and sod all thanks. Generally they would if given the choice because they understand the turf health and environmental benefits but……………well you know what it’s like.

For regular courses, it’s difficult.

[Norbert P]

 Here in the Pacific Northwest, (Down in the valley . . . the valley so lowwww), our older courses become mostly poa annua on the greens and this species requires plenty of water to keep a turf. So plenty of water becomes essential for golfing standards and thus Poa becomes the nurtured grass thus requiring more water thus . . . .  

  Where I work part-time at a golf course, we roll the greens a few times a week, verticut and topdress with sand weekly, and aerify (fairways too), twice a year.  The greens can stimp pretty high (11-ish) on pure poa mowed to .105".  They are fast but not bouncing ball firm.
  Also, the course is built on alluvial soils in an old flood plain barely above sea level with most of the greens raised for better drainage so the run up shot is limited to just a few holes.

  In our area with rich and clayish soils, it's very difficult to get to fast and firm because the soils retain water very well, which both poa and perennial rye thrive in, and we have a fairly long rainy season (seemingly October to June, or when Dick Daley comes to town.).

 It helps, if not essential, that the original design of the course is prepared for fast and firm maintenance; e.g. longer greens as opposed to wider greens, tightly mowable slopes, etc.  It is also the opportune time for incorporating as much sand as possible into the soil mix so that the ground can breathe*. Also, if the course is laid out with greens that will only accept aerial shots, then F&F is rendered useless - at least for the greens.  

  * A tricky business of loam proportioning on a grand scale - adding too little sand merely turns soil into concrete when it dries.  Not really a risk when aerifying as the sand is isolated in the old core holes and not mixed with existing soils.

So, there are many factors and voices in determining if F&F is practicable and maintainable.  Money , needless to say, is always a factor.

 

[Dave_Miller]

Reading the thread about wetting agent got me thinking about the way golf course greenkeeping and design has gone in the last 40 or so years. In Britain up until the 1970’s many golf courses were quite. They therefore suffered less traffic damage that required growth to repair it and the greenkeepers were able to work on the course without having to get out of the way of as many gruops of players as before. This led to several things:


1.   Grass grew slower meaning it was not necessary to cut it as frequently meaning that fairways could be wider, greens mown from hand (a must until 1970) and playing areas required less water and fertiliser.

2.   This in turn meant that it needed less greenkeepers, less products used on the course meaning the costs were kept down.

3.   In turn you had healthier turf meaning less desease and better playing conditions in the winter (although of course very few people actually played in the winter

  As the use of fertiliser increased in the 70’s chasing the ‘great god green’ as Jim Arthur would put this led to increased cutting regimes meaning smaller playing areas as clubs could not afford to employ more greenkeepers and with more watering required to premote more growth the loss of F&F and good winter golfing conditions.

As the amount of play increased the extra revenue was used to employ more greenkeepers to make up for time lost during waiting for golfers. Also club facilities were improved and extended to cope with the extra volume of players.

To return fully to the F&F of the pre 70’s is very difficult for many clubs as they do not have the room to extend the playing areas and many modern courses have not been designed with this in mind. Indeed for many clubs it can only be achieved through machanical aeration through out the year which is very unpopular with many golfers.

What are then the awnsers to this problem in terms of philosophy of the course management and what can GCAs do in their design work to help alleviate this problem?.

Turn off the watering system?
Best
Dave

[Craig Sweet]

Jon...typically fairways were mowed closer to 3/4"....the grass didn't necessrily grow slower...the longer grass handled the amount of play just fine...it handled disease just fine, it handled poa invasion just fine...but somewhere along the way the people playing golf demanded shorter grass in the fairways, this led to figuring out how to make  a lower height of cut handle traffic, handle disease and handle poa...the results are growth regulators, super new grass blends etc. etc...

I don't know if this is good or bad, but I do know the lower you cut grass, the smaller your margin for error (problems) and the more effort you have to put into maintaining it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

I think it's two items, one relatively simple, the other far more complex.

# 1  I'd agree with David Miller.

# 2  It's a cultural issue.
       In most instances the cultural issue conflicts with # 1

When golfing members of clubs watch the PGA Tour on TV every week what do they see ?  
Lush, green conditions.
What do they want for their golf course ?
Lush, green conditions.

As much as WE love watching the British Open and the conditions of the golf course, member clubs aren't that enthused about replicating those conditions.

I'm old enough to remember when fairways browned out every July and August.  Then, brown, or brownish, yellowish, greenish conditions were acceptable.  But, not now.

And, to go from Lush, Green today, to F&F, vis a vis, brownish, yellowish, greenish conditions at some point in the future, is a difficult transition.

Shutting off the water isn't as easy as some seem to think.
The golf course will take a hit.
It's a process that takes several years.
And, many memberships aren't willing to go through years of transition, and many members are opposed to the brownish, yellowish, greenish look as they've NEVER seen it, NEVER experienced it from a playing perspective, hence, they resist it, opting for and promoting those conditions they see every week on the PGA Tour.

So, HOW DO YOU CHANGE THE CULTURE.

I think it has to start at the top.

I think that there are certain clubs that set the tempo for many things in golf.  Call it the ICON factor.

If Pine Valley, Winged Foot, Olympic, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Merion and other high profile clubs embark upon the path of F&F, others will follow.   It's the trickle down effect.

The leadership at these clubs, the ICONS of American golf, have to convince their memberships to embark upon this journey.  And once THEY do, the rest will follow.  Some quickly, some gradually and some never.

It's only through changing the culture that you'll be able to change the playing conditions.

[Jon Wiggett]

Thanks for the replies gentlemen. I believe as Patrick does that it is a cultural thing. There is also the problem of more play over a longer season and the desire for the course not to show any wear and tear.

[Steve Kline]

I talked to our superintendent about this last week. Our course in Cincy, OH gets very wet during the summer. I asked him about keeping it drier but he said it's not possible. We have soil that is mostly clay plus hot and humid summers with night time temps sometimes not dropping below the upper 60s. He said if he lets the course dry out and get brown on tops of the nobs (we have a very hilly course with lumpy fairways) that the result will be turf loss. He said the bent fairways cannot handle these conditions without a significant amount of water. He is using wetting agents and growth retardants.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I answered design wise in another thread - basically, design irrigation to throw water only where water needs to be thrown in the amounts it needs to be applied (i.e. part to part heads around the greens, separate approach control, etc.) and possible adding sand in front green approaches and keep drainage moving other directions.

I don't think its practical to turn off the water. It should be dialed down.  Modern computers tell the super that he had ET of 0.25" or whatever last night and the tempation is to put that much out.  If he put out 0.15" instead, the turf would be a bit drier, but would survive.  Basically, the grass can survive on available moisture of 33%, but the tendency is to keep it near 100% for "consistency."  Eventually, rain or irrigation would be necessary to keep the available moisture above 33% of capacity, and frankly, I think shooting for 50% capacity would be more practical.

[TEPaul]

I just love the subject of this thread but this thread really does make me want to see the search facility on this website massively improved for easy of access for past threads and information.

[tlavin]

Without the right superintendent whose philosophy leans toward this playing setup and whose job security is unquestioned, it's almost impossible to overcome the green is good culture here in the States.  Heck, the move of most clubs is to put more and more rows of irrigation deeper into the roughs in order to get a lush carpet as wide and far as possible.

[Steve Kline]

Jeff - what is ET? How is it measured? If you already have a sprinkler system in, what can/needs to be done to retrofit it for F&F conditions and how roughly how much would that cost - tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands?

[Jon Wiggett]

Steve,

your Super knows his course and climate better than anyone else and it would be foolish to contradict him. However F&F does not mean just bent indeed certainly not Agrostis palutris although some of the newer strains are very good. F&F is often better served with Fescues which is very heat and dry tolerant but it does require that there is plenty of air in the rootzone which should be looked at as been atleast 2-3 feet deep. Although clay soils are not as good as sandy ones, if they are well drained at a deep enough depth (3 Ft +) and aerated sufficiently then it should be possible to keep a good quality playing surface. On top of this hand irrigation becomes more important than automatic.

Terry,

You are correct. It is the problem of what golfers want to see that is the hardest to over come. Alot of players like the idea of F&F but not necessarily at their home club. I think as already mentioned that one or more of the bigger clubs in the US is going to have to lead the way. What is important is the course design allows for it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()