News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2008, 10:49:44 AM »
Thom Nikolai (SP) from Michigan St. did the research on this with the Superintendent from Crystal Downs. His name is escaping me.

His name is Mike Morris

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Scott Stambaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2008, 09:20:00 PM »
We don't have any compaction related to the frequent rolling, on sand-based greens.  Also keep in mind that our goal with this practice is not to speed the greens up, but to maintain a consistant ball roll, while also increasing overall turf health.  In the past, in order to maintain consistant ball roll, we were mowing 7 days a week, at a height of .105".  Now we mow 3 days a week at a height of .130" and the rolling every other day helps maintain the consistency.  This practice also reduces labor requirements dramatically, helping to save the club some $$$.

I'm interested to know how this saves the club money.

I have had this discussion countless times through the years with Boards/Green Commitees/GM's about reducing labor- unless you actually cut bodies, you are not 'saving' the club any money.  In your example, you say you now mow 3 days per week and roll the other days.  So, you have one (or possibly two) more staff members available four days of the week for other tasks, of which I assume there are plenty.

Do you have staff members doing other things than mowing greens, or did you actually save the club some $$$ and get rid of them?


Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2008, 04:01:44 AM »
Scott,

by using the program of rolling/mowing on alternate days it saves time on the actual operation as rolling is usually somewhat quicker. Looking at it this way you save man hours on the actual maintenance work of this particular job, so yes it does save money on this particular work. In addition, the sward will be more desease resistant needing less money spent on chemicals and fertiliser so more savings.

If you then reduce the work force all you will incourage is for the work to be done slowly so as to safe guard jobs.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2008, 06:37:09 AM »
How would this work with the newer strains of bentgrass that I think prefer shorter mowing heghts?

For example, we had issues with our greenside collars (I'm pretty sure they're A1/A4).  Solution?  Cut them lower, cut back the H2O, and they were great this year.  Counter-intuitive for me, a layman, but it certainly worked

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2008, 09:20:05 AM »
Why did the chicken cross the green?

A priest, a rabbi and a fast green go into a bar.....

There was green in Nantucket....


Nothing like a little green speed humor in the morning

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Eric Johnson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2008, 09:47:53 AM »
Why did the chicken cross the green?

A priest, a rabbi and a fast green go into a bar.....

There was green in Nantucket....


Nothing like a little green speed humor in the morning

Joe


I take offense to that. 

Now if you were talking about big green speed humor....................

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #31 on: December 08, 2008, 10:21:24 AM »
We don't have any compaction related to the frequent rolling, on sand-based greens.  Also keep in mind that our goal with this practice is not to speed the greens up, but to maintain a consistant ball roll, while also increasing overall turf health.  In the past, in order to maintain consistant ball roll, we were mowing 7 days a week, at a height of .105".  Now we mow 3 days a week at a height of .130" and the rolling every other day helps maintain the consistency.  This practice also reduces labor requirements dramatically, helping to save the club some $$$.

I'm interested to know how this saves the club money.

I have had this discussion countless times through the years with Boards/Green Commitees/GM's about reducing labor- unless you actually cut bodies, you are not 'saving' the club any money.  In your example, you say you now mow 3 days per week and roll the other days.  So, you have one (or possibly two) more staff members available four days of the week for other tasks, of which I assume there are plenty.

Do you have staff members doing other things than mowing greens, or did you actually save the club some $$$ and get rid of them?



By rolling every other day, you reduce the number of people necessary to mow greens by 3.  These people now mow other things, like fairways, approaches, tees, etc, and only need to work a half day to complete these tasks.  Then when they work the weekends, they are not on overtime, nor do we have to hire part time weekend crews to reduce overtime.  This saves the club $$$.
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Chris Tritabaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #32 on: December 08, 2008, 10:38:57 AM »
I can only speak to how mowing less and rolling more affect $$$ at our Club.

We walk mow our greens and approaches. Each area is mowed by four people. Previously when mowing greens and approaches on the same day it required 8 bodies. Now by rolling greens only on days when the approaches are mowed we can keep the required bodies at 4 instead of 8. Now if a Club is going to hire 4 fewer bodies the savings are obvious. In our case we are able to use the bodies on other tasks, which help improve the overall condition of the course. Essentially providing The Membership with more for less.

Agronomically there are other advantages to rolling more often. As other have also said we are able to keep the mowing heights on our greens a good deal higher than if we mowed only. This saves actual $'s by allowing us to use much less water, fertilizer, and pesticides.

Grant Davey

Re: Green Speed Rumor?
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2008, 11:36:40 AM »
How would this work with the newer strains of bentgrass that I think prefer shorter mowing heghts?

For example, we had issues with our greenside collars (I'm pretty sure they're A1/A4).  Solution?  Cut them lower, cut back the H2O, and they were great this year.  Counter-intuitive for me, a layman, but it certainly worked

Dan, I've seen similar issues and results with Providence Bent. The answer lies in reducing the amount of leaf surface to avoid bruising, damage and crowding of the canopy as the leaf lays over which all compromise the plant's health. Overwatering leads to succulent plants which have a lower stress tolerance and whole lot of other negative impacts on the canopy. The key to all of this is traffic and traffic reduction.

Some very good points made above. One approach does not fit all, as everyone has different goals and situations to deal with. Just for reference (USGA Greens), my current practices include walk mowing seven days a week, with tournement rolling once or two twice a week. I'll substitute or throw in a Vibe roll (lightweight) every now then depending on conditions.

At the end of the day, the best thing for greens speeds, ball roll and consistency is a good topdressing program and a vigilant approach to managing the organic layer in the soil interface.