At my course (GMGC) we recently made an alteration, mostly to speed the course up going into our big annual tournament, from using both growth regulators AND bio-stimulants to just using growth regulators.
We also altered our top-dressing mix to one of a higher sand content. We did this through a green aeration cycle about three weeks before the tournament.
Since there's been little rain the results were pretty interesting.
The greens got the speed we were looking for but the results of the aeration process were really visible causing a lot of people to say the greens looked in bad shape. But they played well in the realm of speed.
On the side of firmness it seems to me the higher sand content of the topdressing made the greens play more receptive than firm.
Our super said if he'd continued with the bio stimulants the results of the recent aeration would not have been visible (as visible) but we could not have gotten the speed we were looking for.
I must say I'm not completely convinced of this but probably only because I don't really know what I'm talking about in the world of these kinds of agronomic decisions.
Anyway, the whole thing was explained by both the super and the green committee (which I'm on) as something of a trade-off.
The fact was we just weren't getting the speed on the greens the members were looking for and asking for and this was what we did to get that.
So we got the speed they were asking for but we also got a "look" they didn't much like.
And so ends the first lesson in green committee, playablity and agronomic maintenance decisionism.