[JSPayne]

Many people have touched on great points and ideas so far.....since I'm dealing with this exact thing at my course, here's my synopsis:

1) You need half heads for green and surrounds seperately for best control. This should be done first and foremost.

2) If you wand F & F, you really do have to start managing the approaches like the greens in terms of cultivation. You really should try to aerify at least twice a year, verticut to cut down on thatch and try to get on a regular topdressing program (light, frequent applications of sand). This will slowly create a soil profile that will more readily accept and drain water.

3) Put in supplemental drainage. This, in combination with the cultivation practices above, are what I am moving toward this winter into next year. Since I water my greens deeply and infrequently, the approaches are often sopping wet after a nightly irrigation when I watered the greens, as inevitably some water drains off the surface of the green toward the approach and on those nights, because of slight overthrow from greens sprinklers, the approach gets more water than necessary. To combat this, I'm going to go to the wettest approaches(not all, but eventually I might) and install what is sometimes referred to as a "smile drain", which will hug the edge of the green and hopefully catch any surface water that may try to run off and channel it into drains underground and away from the approach.

Essentially, more and better drainage will give you what you're looking for. Sand topdressing and diverting that extra water from greens irrigation will make a huge difference.

[TX Golf]

This might be one of the stupidest comments ever made on this website, but thats why I love this place.

Would it not be possible to put a french drain or something similar that would surround a green?? This seems like it would solve the problem of excess water from the greens running into the approaches. Would this affect green drainage in an adverse way?? Thanks and sorry if that was a ridiculous question.

Robert

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat great topic. It seems with the Irish being not much more than a Div II team you have time for reflection. I find this to be an issue at 80% of the private clubs I see along the gulf coast. I like the answers and still am puzzled as to why so may clubs including my home town course are so resistant to addressing it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

This might be one of the stupidest comments ever made on this website, but thats why I love this place.

Would it not be possible to put a french drain or something similar that would surround a green??

It's possible, but, it would create playability and ruling problems.

This seems like it would solve the problem of excess water from the greens running into the approaches.

At the cost of allowing the golfer to take relief.
It's not a practical solution.

Would this affect green drainage in an adverse way??

Thanks and sorry if that was a ridiculous question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat great topic.

It seems with the Irish being not much more than a Div II team you have time for reflection.

Time will tell.

I heard that for their last game LSU's team was staying at a local hotel.
Evidently they had just finished dinner and the entire team was heading down to the lobby on a large escalator when the hotel had a power outage. 

I understand that the entire team was stuck on the escalator for five hours before someone led them to safety. 

I find this to be an issue at 80% of the private clubs I see along the gulf coast. I like the answers and still am puzzled as to why so may clubs including my home town course are so resistant to addressing it.


Tiger, that's what I don't understand either, the failure to acknowledge and address the issue.  That's why I'm interested in hearing ways that other clubs might have solved the problem.

Have clubs accepted this condition as the "norm" ?

Is it because F&F is new to many clubs ?

With the current economic climate I don't see the allotment of resources for fixing the problem.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

The key to creating a F&F playability in approaches is basically the result of what has been mentioned on this thread a few times already-----maintenance practices 10-30 yards from green fronts are being treated somewhat the same as green maintenance. Frequent topdressing in these areas is also being done more than in the past on courses attempting to create F&F in approaches.

[TX Golf]

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

Patrick,

How much water a green needs depends on where they are, what the climate is and time of year. Do they need more water than the fairways? If it is the same grass, in the same rootzone and you want F&F NO.

Also Patrick, if your after F&F then both your green and fairway will be at a similar height.

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

Duhhhh,

that is what I have been saying all along and you have been neigh saying.

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

Robert,

yes you are correct. A french drain may be covered. Patrick just can't help disagreeing with any post he reads.

[Don_Mahaffey]

If you have similar root zones and similar grasses, try and treat the greens and approaches the same and they will play the same. Irrigate them the same and hand water as needed on the greens.
When you topdress the greens, make a few passes in the approaches as well. Most of all incorporate cultural/nutrientional practices that reduce compaction and encourage deep rooting.

Often times a wet approach is a sign of an over watered green. Irrigate as needed to grow healthy turf, not to soften the greens so they will "hold".

IMO, building approaches as you would a modern sand-based green is in most cases over kill. If you are in very heavy soils, then you may have to build sand-based approaches and fwys in order to get the playing characteristics you seek. But, practical construction coupled with prudent management should yield conditions that allow you to bounce the ball up to the green.

[Ken Moum]

Gents,

you are all missing the most obvious point. It is not that the surrounds are getting more water than the greens but they are still softer. Maybe thats because they are not the same rootzone, often not the same grasses and don't receive the same maintenance programme. Solution is .... let me think.

Ahh, why not look at making it all similar if not the same.

A point of interest...

In 2005 I got a tour of the (then unnamed) Castle Course from Links Superintendent Gordon Moir.

As you can see from the photo, they had marked the edge of this green with marker paint. Gordon said that to allow the approaches to be maintained the way they wanted, the greensmix had been extended into the approaches.

I didn't ask, but assumed that the line was the only thing that distinguished green from approach.



Ken

[Jon Wiggett]

Ken,

good construction methods for a course that wishes to be F&F is to ensure that the entire green complex has a similar, if not the same build. Good maintenance of said complex means that everything you do with the putting surface is also carried out beyond it. Not really rocket science is it

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

Patrick,

How much water a green needs depends on where they are, what the climate is and time of year.

The Met area of NY, from MD to LD.

Do they need more water than the fairways?
If it is the same grass, in the same rootzone and you want F&F NO.

Are you stating that greens mowed tight, to produce 10, 11 and 12 on the stimp don't need more water than fairways ?

Also Patrick, if your after F&F then both your green and fairway will be at a similar height.

That's absurd.  You're not going to mow 30+ acres of fairway to heights similar to green height.  The costs associated with that practice and maintainance implications would be monumental

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

Duhhhh,

that is what I have been saying all along and you have been neigh saying.


You're confused, you're the one who stated that it wasn't necessarily water related, I stated that it WAS a water issue, especially since the fairway short of the approach was firm & fast.

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

Robert,

yes you are correct. A french drain may be covered. Patrick just can't help disagreeing with any post he reads.

Jon, you know that covering a french drain with turf compromises its ability to drain.   In addition, it provides a hidden hazard to the golfer.  It's a bad idea that becomes a horrendous idea when you circle the green with them, and you know it.  Now try admitting it.

[TX Golf]

Sorry Patrick,

I said I wasn't sure if it was a stupid idea or not. I just thought I would throw it out there as a possible idea!!!

And aren't most fairway drainage systems pretty much built in a similar style to French Drains. Whether in a herringbone pattern or whatever, the actual trenches themselves seem to be those of french drain.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert,

One of the problems with ringing a green with a french drain/s is the settling or sinking of the soil and the "playability" problems it would create.

The more topsoil added to offset the sinking, the less efficient the drain becomes.

I'm surprised Jon didn't mention that, but, maybe he doesn't play golf.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

You could backfill the last few inches with sand, and make sure you compact.  Topsoil would stop the drainage completely.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

Patrick,

How much water a green needs depends on where they are, what the climate is and time of year.

The Met area of NY, from MD to LD.

Patrick,

It was a statement, not a question so no need to answer old boy


Do they need more water than the fairways?
If it is the same grass, in the same rootzone and you want F&F NO.

Are you stating that greens mowed tight, to produce 10, 11 and 12 on the stimp don't need more water than fairways ?

Also Patrick, if your after F&F then both your green and fairway will be at a similar height.

That's absurd.  You're not going to mow 30+ acres of fairway to heights similar to green height.  The costs associated with that practice and maintainance implications would be monumental

No Patrick, I never said that greens stimping at 10, 11, 12 don't need more water than the fairways. But ask yourself if the greens need considerably more water than the surrounds or fairways why is this?

TOC is an example of fairway heights and green heights being similar

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

Duhhhh,

that is what I have been saying all along and you have been neigh saying.


You're confused, you're the one who stated that it wasn't necessarily water related, I stated that it WAS a water issue, especially since the fairway short of the approach was firm & fast.

[/quote]

You're right Patrick, I was confused. I misread your quote to say 'it is' instead of 'is it'. But what you are saying is when two areas recieve the same amount of water and the one area is much softer the difference is the softer area has received too much water. Nothing to do with the rootzone then

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

Robert,

yes you are correct. A french drain may be covered. Patrick just can't help disagreeing with any post he reads.

Jon, you know that covering a french drain with turf compromises its ability to drain.   In addition, it provides a hidden hazard to the golfer.  It's a bad idea that becomes a horrendous idea when you circle the green with them, and you know it.  Now try admitting it.

[/quote]
[/quote]

No Patrick, there is no problem with back filling with rootzone and seeding. You are correct that it will not drain as well as if it is not grassed but the drain needs to fit the situation. Even if you leave a french open it will get covered by vegetation over a period of time unless you spray. The most efficient form of drain is an open ditch but I will let you figure out by yourself why we don't use them in greenside drainge very often.

Robert,

One of the problems with ringing a green with a french drain/s is the settling or sinking of the soil and the "playability" problems it would create.

The more topsoil added to offset the sinking, the less efficient the drain becomes.

I'm surprised Jon didn't mention that, but, maybe he doesn't play golf.

Robert the installation of drains always lead to to a certain amount of settlement wether it is on a golf course, football field or street. This hasn't stopped thousands of clubs from installing it post build and Patrick knows this but has to push his argument even when all the facts are against him.

Patrick, the ability to play golf or not is always relevant to your measuring stick. Let me know your handicap and I will tell you if you play my game.

P.S. Before I start a riot being a golfer is not handicap based

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

Patrick,

How much water a green needs depends on where they are, what the climate is and time of year.

The Met area of NY, from MD to LD.

Patrick,

It was a statement, not a question so no need to answer old boy


Do they need more water than the fairways?
If it is the same grass, in the same rootzone and you want F&F NO.

Are you stating that greens mowed tight, to produce 10, 11 and 12 on the stimp don't need more water than fairways ?

Also Patrick, if your after F&F then both your green and fairway will be at a similar height.

That's absurd.  You're not going to mow 30+ acres of fairway to heights similar to green height.  The costs associated with that practice and maintainance implications would be monumental

No Patrick, I never said that greens stimping at 10, 11, 12 don't need more water than the fairways. But ask yourself if the greens need considerably more water than the surrounds or fairways why is this?

TOC is an example of fairway heights and green heights being similar

That's both an extreme answer and a bad example.

In order to get the greens at TOC to 12+ you'd have to cover them with cellophane.

In attending USGA championships I've noticed that the greens were close to being lost and needed to be syringed, regularly.

I've never seen a crew syringe a fairway or rough.

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

Duhhhh,

that is what I have been saying all along and you have been neigh saying.


You're confused, you're the one who stated that it wasn't necessarily water related, I stated that it WAS a water issue, especially since the fairway short of the approach was firm & fast.

You're right Patrick, I was confused. I misread your quote to say 'it is' instead of 'is it'. But what you are saying is when two areas recieve the same amount of water and the one area is much softer the difference is the softer area has received too much water. Nothing to do with the rootzone then

The trend in the U.S. and in the Northeast is toward firm & fast greens, hence, they get mowed fairly low.  Some are rolled as well.
I've seen those greens stress to the point that they're almost lost.

I've never seen a fronting fairway or surrounding rough stress to the point it's almost lost.

The ONLY thing that could be responsible for that is the water requirement.

Especially when we're not talking about USGA spec greens, but greens that are merely an extension of the fairway.

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

Robert,

yes you are correct. A french drain may be covered. Patrick just can't help disagreeing with any post he reads.

Jon, you know that covering a french drain with turf compromises its ability to drain.   In addition, it provides a hidden hazard to the golfer.  It's a bad idea that becomes a horrendous idea when you circle the green with them, and you know it.  Now try admitting it.

[/quote]
[/quote]

No Patrick, there is no problem with back filling with rootzone and seeding.


You can do it until you're blue in the face, the french drain will continue to sink.  Adding fill and seed will ameliorate/fill the sinking trench, but, reduce the efficiency of the drain until it becomes almost useless.

You are correct that it will not drain as well as if it is not grassed but the drain needs to fit the situation. Even if you leave a french open it will get covered by vegetation over a period of time unless you spray. The most efficient form of drain is an open ditch but I will let you figure out by yourself why we don't use them in greenside drainge very often.

That's an architectural luxury. 
I'm aware of several to numerous greens that enjoy a close relationship to a nearby ditch/stream.

Unfortunately, with enviromental restrictions, that's a luxury that's gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Robert,

One of the problems with ringing a green with a french drain/s is the settling or sinking of the soil and the "playability" problems it would create.

The more topsoil added to offset the sinking, the less efficient the drain becomes.

I'm surprised Jon didn't mention that, but, maybe he doesn't play golf.

Robert the installation of drains always lead to to a certain amount of settlement wether it is on a golf course, football field or street. This hasn't stopped thousands of clubs from installing it post build and Patrick knows this but has to push his argument even when all the facts are against him.


The facts remain on my side.

Building French Drains at the perimeter of a green is a horrible idea and you know it.

I'm aware that hundreds, if not thousands of clubs build French Drains.
I can see the sunken trenches at almost every one of them.
Evidently, the Superintendents at these clubs can use your expertise in making them invisible, while retaining their efficiency.

Patrick, the ability to play golf or not is always relevant to your measuring stick. Let me know your handicap and I will tell you if you play my game.


My handicap varied between +2 and 0 for about 40 years and between 2 and 6 for over 6 years

P.S. Before I start a riot being a golfer is not handicap based

For once, we agree.

[/quote]

I've come to the conclusion that the problem in not cultural, but, political.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

Patrick,

How much water a green needs depends on where they are, what the climate is and time of year.

The Met area of NY, from MD to LD.

Patrick,

It was a statement, not a question so no need to answer old boy


Do they need more water than the fairways?
If it is the same grass, in the same rootzone and you want F&F NO.

Are you stating that greens mowed tight, to produce 10, 11 and 12 on the stimp don't need more water than fairways ?

Also Patrick, if your after F&F then both your green and fairway will be at a similar height.

That's absurd.  You're not going to mow 30+ acres of fairway to heights similar to green height.  The costs associated with that practice and maintainance implications would be monumental

No Patrick, I never said that greens stimping at 10, 11, 12 don't need more water than the fairways. But ask yourself if the greens need considerably more water than the surrounds or fairways why is this?

TOC is an example of fairway heights and green heights being similar

That's both an extreme answer and a bad example.

In order to get the greens at TOC to 12+ you'd have to cover them with cellophane.

In attending USGA championships I've noticed that the greens were close to being lost and needed to be syringed, regularly.

I've never seen a crew syringe a fairway or rough.

Patrick,

TOC is a very good example. I have never said anything about 12+ greens this is your fetish. You seem hell bent on pushing extreme low cut greens but F&F does not need stimp 12+. And before you say one of the F's is for FAST TOC often plays F&F as do most true links courses but according to your opinion TOC is an extreme example. I would say TOC is one of the best examples of F&F

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

Duhhhh,

that is what I have been saying all along and you have been neigh saying.


You're confused, you're the one who stated that it wasn't necessarily water related, I stated that it WAS a water issue, especially since the fairway short of the approach was firm & fast.

You're right Patrick, I was confused. I misread your quote to say 'it is' instead of 'is it'. But what you are saying is when two areas recieve the same amount of water and the one area is much softer the difference is the softer area has received too much water. Nothing to do with the rootzone then

The trend in the U.S. and in the Northeast is toward firm & fast greens, hence, they get mowed fairly low.  Some are rolled as well.
I've seen those greens stress to the point that they're almost lost.

I've never seen a fronting fairway or surrounding rough stress to the point it's almost lost.

The ONLY thing that could be responsible for that is the water requirement.

Especially when we're not talking about USGA spec greens, but greens that are merely an extension of the fairway.

Again Patrick, if you want similar conditions inside and outside the putting surface then you need a similar environment. That surely can't be too hard to understand. You keep on going on about how these two areas are different but also keep bringing up how they are managed differently like above. I thought this was a thread about soft surrounds and why they are so???

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

Robert,

yes you are correct. A french drain may be covered. Patrick just can't help disagreeing with any post he reads.

Jon, you know that covering a french drain with turf compromises its ability to drain.   In addition, it provides a hidden hazard to the golfer.  It's a bad idea that becomes a horrendous idea when you circle the green with them, and you know it.  Now try admitting it.

[/quote]

No Patrick, there is no problem with back filling with rootzone and seeding.


You can do it until you're blue in the face, the french drain will continue to sink.  Adding fill and seed will ameliorate/fill the sinking trench, but, reduce the efficiency of the drain until it becomes almost useless.

Patrick, the drain does not continue to sink for ever rather the sinkage is rather minimal if the back filling is done properly. I would also point out that a USGA specs green sits it rootzone on a frenchdrain and they don't seem to sink into the ground or is another extreme example

You are correct that it will not drain as well as if it is not grassed but the drain needs to fit the situation. Even if you leave a french open it will get covered by vegetation over a period of time unless you spray. The most efficient form of drain is an open ditch but I will let you figure out by yourself why we don't use them in greenside drainge very often.

That's an architectural luxury. 
I'm aware of several to numerous greens that enjoy a close relationship to a nearby ditch/stream.

Unfortunately, with enviromental restrictions, that's a luxury that's gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Robert,

One of the problems with ringing a green with a french drain/s is the settling or sinking of the soil and the "playability" problems it would create.

The more topsoil added to offset the sinking, the less efficient the drain becomes.

I'm surprised Jon didn't mention that, but, maybe he doesn't play golf.

Robert the installation of drains always lead to to a certain amount of settlement wether it is on a golf course, football field or street. This hasn't stopped thousands of clubs from installing it post build and Patrick knows this but has to push his argument even when all the facts are against him.


The facts remain on my side.

Building French Drains at the perimeter of a green is a horrible idea and you know it.

I'm aware that hundreds, if not thousands of clubs build French Drains.
I can see the sunken trenches at almost every one of them.
Evidently, the Superintendents at these clubs can use your expertise in making them invisible, while retaining their efficiency.

Patrick, if thousands of clubs are using french drains in such a way there must be a reason. Like all things in life one has to use the best possible solution that you can afford. If you have a better one that is of similar price please let us hear it.

Patrick, the ability to play golf or not is always relevant to your measuring stick. Let me know your handicap and I will tell you if you play my game.


My handicap varied between +2 and 0 for about 40 years and between 2 and 6 for over 6 years

Not bad Patrick, I'm impressed .

P.S. Before I start a riot being a golfer is not handicap based

For once, we agree.

[/quote]

I've come to the conclusion that the problem in not cultural, but, political.


[/quote]

Patrick,

Hope you can find out which are my new posts. I would do the colour thing but do not know how  Maybe that is something you could teach me

[Ken Moum]

I would do the colour thing but do not know how  Maybe that is something you could teach me

The easiest way to learn about colored text and inserting photos is to reply with quotes to a message that uses it and look at the first poster's text.

Patrick also bolds his so he has this code (b)(color=green) at the beginning, and (/b) at the end of the colored section. Note that you have to switch [ ] for ( )

Ken

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

Don't greens need more water than fairways ?

Especiallly if they're cut very low ?

Patrick,

How much water a green needs depends on where they are, what the climate is and time of year.

The Met area of NY, from MD to LD.

Patrick,

It was a statement, not a question so no need to answer old boy


Do they need more water than the fairways?
If it is the same grass, in the same rootzone and you want F&F NO.

Are you stating that greens mowed tight, to produce 10, 11 and 12 on the stimp don't need more water than fairways ?

Also Patrick, if your after F&F then both your green and fairway will be at a similar height.

That's absurd.  You're not going to mow 30+ acres of fairway to heights similar to green height.  The costs associated with that practice and maintainance implications would be monumental

No Patrick, I never said that greens stimping at 10, 11, 12 don't need more water than the fairways. But ask yourself if the greens need considerably more water than the surrounds or fairways why is this?

TOC is an example of fairway heights and green heights being similar

That's both an extreme answer and a bad example.

In order to get the greens at TOC to 12+ you'd have to cover them with cellophane.

In attending USGA championships I've noticed that the greens were close to being lost and needed to be syringed, regularly.

I've never seen a crew syringe a fairway or rough.

Patrick,

TOC is a very good example. I have never said anything about 12+ greens this is your fetish. You seem hell bent on pushing extreme low cut greens but F&F does not need stimp 12+.

I'm not pushing 12+ speeds, but that's the reality at many clubs.
They want fast greens.
You can't have fast greens with high cuts.

And before you say one of the F's is for FAST TOC often plays F&F as do most true links courses but according to your opinion TOC is an extreme example. I would say TOC is one of the best examples of F&F
It's not a good example because it is a links course which enjoys a unique climate and sandy soil next to the sea.

How many courses in the U.S. sit next to the sea on sandy soil with that climate ?   Three ?  Four ?  A dozen ?
[/b]

Jon,

If the fairways play fast & firm in their entirety, save for right in front of the green (approach), is it not logical to conclude that the problem is solely with excess water in the approach ?

Especially when the greens emerge, seemlessly out of the fairway, and especially when the green continues to fall away from the tee/fairway.

Duhhhh,

that is what I have been saying all along and you have been neigh saying.


You're confused, you're the one who stated that it wasn't necessarily water related, I stated that it WAS a water issue, especially since the fairway short of the approach was firm & fast.

You're right Patrick, I was confused. I misread your quote to say 'it is' instead of 'is it'. But what you are saying is when two areas recieve the same amount of water and the one area is much softer the difference is the softer area has received too much water. Nothing to do with the rootzone then

The trend in the U.S. and in the Northeast is toward firm & fast greens, hence, they get mowed fairly low.  Some are rolled as well.
I've seen those greens stress to the point that they're almost lost.

I've never seen a fronting fairway or surrounding rough stress to the point it's almost lost.

The ONLY thing that could be responsible for that is the water requirement.

Especially when we're not talking about USGA spec greens, but greens that are merely an extension of the fairway.

Again Patrick, if you want similar conditions inside and outside the putting surface then you need a similar environment. That surely can't be too hard to understand. You keep on going on about how these two areas are different but also keep bringing up how they are managed differently like above. I thought this was a thread about soft surrounds and why they are so???

When similar conditions exist and the approach remains soft, it's a water issue, which is what I stated at the begining.   You avoided answering the question about how greens stress out while adjancent fairways don't, when both have similar conditions.

Patrick,

I was assuming that it would be covered by turf.... Is it not possible to grow turf over a French Drain??

Robert,

yes you are correct. A french drain may be covered. Patrick just can't help disagreeing with any post he reads.

Jon, you know that covering a french drain with turf compromises its ability to drain.   In addition, it provides a hidden hazard to the golfer.  It's a bad idea that becomes a horrendous idea when you circle the green with them, and you know it.  Now try admitting it.

No Patrick, there is no problem with back filling with rootzone and seeding.


You can do it until you're blue in the face, the french drain will continue to sink.  Adding fill and seed will ameliorate/fill the sinking trench, but, reduce the efficiency of the drain until it becomes almost useless.

Patrick, the drain does not continue to sink for ever rather the sinkage is rather minimal if the back filling is done properly. I would also point out that a USGA specs green sits it rootzone on a frenchdrain and they don't seem to sink into the ground or is another extreme example

It is an extreme example.

I never said that French Drains sink forever, but, you and I know that they sink for a good amount of time.  And, the more you fill them, the less efficient they become.

Now you're equating a two foot specially layered foundation to excavating a french drain ?

And, most USGA spec greens are elevated, which provides an enormous advantage when it comes to drainage. 

You are correct that it will not drain as well as if it is not grassed but the drain needs to fit the situation. Even if you leave a french open it will get covered by vegetation over a period of time unless you spray. The most efficient form of drain is an open ditch but I will let you figure out by yourself why we don't use them in greenside drainge very often.

That's an architectural luxury. 
I'm aware of several to numerous greens that enjoy a close relationship to a nearby ditch/stream.

Unfortunately, with enviromental restrictions, that's a luxury that's gone the way of the dinosaurs.

Robert,

One of the problems with ringing a green with a french drain/s is the settling or sinking of the soil and the "playability" problems it would create.

The more topsoil added to offset the sinking, the less efficient the drain becomes.

I'm surprised Jon didn't mention that, but, maybe he doesn't play golf.

Robert the installation of drains always lead to to a certain amount of settlement wether it is on a golf course, football field or street. This hasn't stopped thousands of clubs from installing it post build and Patrick knows this but has to push his argument even when all the facts are against him.


The facts remain on my side.

Building French Drains at the perimeter of a green is a horrible idea and you know it.

I'm aware that hundreds, if not thousands of clubs build French Drains.
I can see the sunken trenches at almost every one of them.
Evidently, the Superintendents at these clubs can use your expertise in making them invisible, while retaining their efficiency.

Patrick, if thousands of clubs are using french drains in such a way there must be a reason. Like all things in life one has to use the best possible solution that you can afford. If you have a better one that is of similar price please let us hear it.

The use of French Drains is rarely done where the green meets the fronting fairway and you know that as well.

The overwhelming majority of French Drains are in fairways

Patrick, the ability to play golf or not is always relevant to your measuring stick. Let me know your handicap and I will tell you if you play my game.


My handicap varied between +2 and 0 for about 40 years and between 2 and 6 for over 6 years

Not bad Patrick, I'm impressed .

P.S. Before I start a riot being a golfer is not handicap based

For once, we agree.

[/quote]

I've come to the conclusion that the problem in not cultural, but, political.


[/quote]

Patrick,

Hope you can find out which are my new posts. I would do the colour thing but do not know how  Maybe that is something you could teach me


Jon,

just type a bracket [  then type color=the color you want, then type a back bracket ]  the text that follows will be in the color you choose.  when you're done typing in color, type the bracket [ then type in the backslash / then type in the word "color" then type in the back bracket ] 

[/quote]

[Adam Clayman]

I've seen those greens stress to the point that they're almost lost.

This misnomer can not go unchallenged.

Are you saying "lost" meaning dead? Or, the color green being lost?


As an aside, this trend of using the quote boxes, repeatedly, is becoming tedious to read, confusing as to who said what, and, most importantly, a WASTE, of bandwith.

Please cease and desist from copying the entire quote box and only the germane quote you wish to respond?

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

just dropped in to look but have no time to reply properly. I would point out that you are getting desperate now though and starting to contradict yourself. It is difficult to go round in circle whilst backed into a corner but if you start thinking outside the box it may help you . Patrick and Ken, thanks for the writing in colour  how many colours do we have? are we in danger of running out?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've seen those greens stress to the point that they're almost lost.

This misnomer can not go unchallenged.

Are you saying "lost" meaning dead?
Or, the color green being lost?

"lost" like in going, going, gone.

As an aside, this trend of using the quote boxes, repeatedly, is becoming tedious to read, confusing as to who said what, and, most importantly, a WASTE, of bandwith.

Please cease and desist from copying the entire quote box and only the germane quote you wish to respond?

Feel free to express yourself as you please, and I'll do the same.

Keeping a perspective in context remains an important consideration.

Jon,

I think I've been, and continue to be, consistent and non-contradictory.

You may recall that you admitted to misreading several portions of the text.
Perhaps that remains a problem for you

As to the limit on colors, I don't know the answer.
I do know that certain colors, like yellow are  hard to read.

[Adam Clayman]

"lost" like in going, going, gone.[/b]

I would therefore point you to George Pazin's new series on maintenance. Week #1 I believe, which taught us that grass does not come close to going going gone. It first goes dormant, then after the crown is either frozen or dried out, will die. Grass is self preserving tough stuff.  The purple hue at Shinny in '04 and then again at Hoylake, when it was browned out, was mistakenly called dying grass by many bozos in the media and in this forum.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I now have a few minutes to address your confusion and help point you in the right direction .

You quoted in a previous answer

‘I think I've been, and continue to be, consistent and non-contradictory.’

But have also stated

‘You can do it until you're blue in the face, the french drain will continue to sink.’

Closely followed in a following answer

‘I never said that French Drains sink forever, but, you and I know that they sink for a good amount of time.  And, the more you fill them, the less efficient they become.’

‘Until your blue in the face’ seems quite alot longer than a good amount of time.

A correctly built french drain will only settle about 1/2". A USGA green is built the same as a well built french drain, it is just the dimensions that are a little different.

Your quote ‘You may recall that you admitted to misreading several portions of the text. Perhaps that remains a problem for you  ’

This might be true, maybe I am slightly word dyslexic but because when I see a mistake that I have made I can also admit it, this means I can learn from my mistakes. Your tatic of never admitting mistakes (yes, I know you will say you do ) leads to you contradicting yourself.

I have however found where your problem might lie!

Your quote

‘The trend in the U.S. and in the Northeast is toward firm & fast greens, hence, they get mowed fairly low.  Some are rolled as well.’

Patrick, the title of this thread is ‘One of the prime difficulties in preparing a course to be F & F is’ maybe you just misread what you wrote or is it a typo

F&F is to do with how the entire course plays and not just the greens. A course can have greens stimping at 9’ and still play F&F. In order for the green and surrounds to play the same the sward needs to be similar, the cutting heights need to be similar, the rootzone needs to be similar and the maintenance needs to be similar. I would suggest that one or probably more of theses points are not the case at your course.

Look at all these things again Patrick and in an honest fashion. Then provide prove instead of  just putting other peoples opinions down. In this thread, there have been many suggestions from several people about possible solutions. What have you suggested???

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()