[Michael Rossi]

This post will describe the common diseases found on turfgrasses used for putting surfaces globally.

Disease: International Creeping Green Syndrome (ICGS)

Pathogen: This is the Latin name of the pathogen that causes the disease - humanus non charisma

Turfgrasses Affected: The list of the turfgrasses that are normally affected by this disease is far too long. 

Occurrence: The exact time when a disease will occur is dependent on the environment, usually early morning after a night of little sleep or heavy drinking. The time of year when the disease is most likely to occur is during the summer. In many cases, diseases occur when the turf is not growing rapidly, usually due to optimal temperatures for outdoor parties. Under these circumstances, recovery from a disease will be slow. After all, to replace diseased leaf tissue the grass plant must produce new leaves Type I, or in some cases have them shortened Type II. Since there are distinct climatic variations throughout the world (north vs. south; coastal vs. inland), these variations should be considered when diagnosing the problem. The situations (ex: party night before, staff BBQ, long weekend) or stresses (vodka, beer, rum, whiskey) that will cause the disease to occur or make it worse.

Symptoms/Signs: There are two types of ICGS. Type I rings have a zone of dead grass just inside a zone of longer green grass usually the collar. Type II rings have only a band of dark green turf, with or without mushrooms present. Rings may be very small and skinny initially, less than 1-2 inches, but normally expand each year. It is not uncommon for rings to be 4o feet or more in diameter. The size and completeness (circular, semiquarter circles) of the bands varies considerably. Mushrooms will normally not be produced during the golf season but sometimes do appear. Since some of the mushrooms are poisonous or hallucinogenic, mushrooms should be removed, destroyed or dried and eaten in the off season best to consume prior to the clubs AGM. Chopping them up with the mower is adequate. Note it is possible to have both types occurring at the same time.

Cultural Controls: Cultural controls require that everyone involved with management of the turfgrass work together to solve or prevent the disease problem. Small paint dots at collar edge have been know to help, and probing for interface barriers ensures that the dots are in the correct place. Monitoring by the turf manager ensures accuracy.

Chemical Controls: Chemical control treatments (fungicides) are currently not available, due to human rights activist interference. Equipment companies are working on a solution incorporating GPS and robot controlled mowers.

 

[Kyle Harris]

Michael Rossi,

Why the need for rigid definition on golf courses?

How does this actually affect playability?

If it could be done, I'd have absolutely no rigid demarcation between different length grasses, just a gentle flow.

Thoughts?

[Michael Rossi]

In another post it was brought up about a reno job when they were looking for the original green edge. If the turf is maintained as originally designed this work is not necessary, other threads are discussing controlling expenses to keep golf affordable. 

The ridged mowing lines are IMO are in place to keep the design intent of the original work. It also helps keep a healthy turf stand, especially when type I is happening, (putting surface expansion).

When the GCA sets the grass lines I believe they hope the super will maintain those lines. We have had this discussion before, my choice is to maintain them as set by the GCA you say let them wander. We see the situation differently.

Why let them wander?

[Kyle Harris]

In another post it was brought up about a reno job when they were looking for the original green edge. If the turf is maintained as originally designed this work is not necessary, other threads are discussing controlling expenses to keep golf affordable. 

The ridged mowing lines are IMO are in place to keep the design intent of the original work. It also helps keep a healthy turf stand, especially when type I is happening, (putting surface expansion).

When the GCA sets the grass lines I believe they hope the super will maintain those lines. We have had this discussion before, my choice is to maintain them as set by the GCA you say let them wander. We see the situation differently.

Why let them wander?

Yes, as I recall we have.

I don't say let them wander. I say don't have them exist. There is quite a difference.

[Michael Rossi]

I understand that your opinion is to allow them the move from the original placement of the GCA, could you restate why?

[TEPaul]

"Why the need for rigid definition on golf courses?

How does this actually affect playability?

If it could be done, I'd have absolutely no rigid demarcation between different length grasses, just a gentle flow.

Thoughts?"



Kyle:

Personally, I like your idea of less definition but what would golfers do, for instance, if and when they couldn't tell if their ball was on or off the green as far as marking and lifting it? On the other hand, if you don't even like the idea of golfers marking and lifting their golf balls on greens this lack of definition idea of yours might logically get us all the way back to the stymie again. That would at least make Patrick Mucci happy.


Speaking of less definition, for those who have never seen it I would suggest checking out the teeing areas at Sebonack.

[Kyle Harris]

I understand that your opinion is to allow them the move from the original placement of the GCA, could you restate why?

Mike,

I think the first issue was whether or not they were "placed" in a specific area by the GCA. What's our level of error? 5 feet? 10 feet? 1 foot? Why are those lines so sacrosanct? How far into the future are we to interpret the design intent and what if the lack of definition makes for a better golf experience? I see fairway/rough lines as wall paper. The area between the tee and putting green is considered "through the green" for a reason with no specific definitions for rough and fairway - design to the rule, not as the rule.

For greens, our level of error is probably very small - and as Tom points out - there is a rules quandary. Which to this day seems odd to me since the rule reads "closely mown area" in the definition? How close is close? What's to say a fairway cut at .350 is not closely mown, as well? The spirit of the rule, is of course the putting green defines what is closely mown - but there are courses out there where the different in the height of cut between the collar and the green is 1/8".

Wasn't there a time when the putting green was defined as the area within 30 feet of the flagstick? Perhaps a rewrite is in order with the 30 foot rule and the closely mown area definition combined. That way, we could integrate the approach, the collar and the green under the definition of putting green and eliminate the need for rigid formalization.

Superintendents could even be clever with mowing and give portions of the green a break from mowing when needed by being judicious with flag stick placement. Does the back of the green really need to be cut when the hole is located on the front and the course is in a period of low-growth? Saves labor, plant stress and time.

[Michael Rossi]

Kyle

Good points.

What I am suggesting helps keep the margin of error small within inches. The GCA does place the edges of a green in a [bvery ]specific [/b]place, how the grass is maintained with in is up the keeper. Cultural practices such as when and when not to now have nothing to do with maintaining the placement of the edge the putting surface.

When the edge of the putting surface moves around depending on in or out we lose false fronts, pinnable area and induce stress to the plant, changes the aesthetics for good or bad is up the beholder and changes the visual with the approaching shot. We often discuss on this board "bad" changes to the design ie: pebble beach bunker thread. When the surface shrinks it gets away from greenside bunkers not good as viewed by most here either.

Honestly, I would like to better understand your side of this.

[Kyle Harris]

Honestly, I would like to better understand your side of this.

I think the best place to start is to draw a hole with only the tees, bunkers and green/collar defined as drawn.

Then.... "place" areas of rough instead of defining "corridors" of fairway.

You're 100% correct about the loss of putting green area, by the way. I cannot think of an example where a green has shrunk to the point of losing interesting features or segregating itself from hazards in the area that has been an improvement. I prefer vast areas of short grass that gently blend into rougher areas.

[Michael Rossi]

OK I get the fairway and rough idea.

Do you think that greens should move in shape and size?

[Kyle Harris]

OK I get the fairway and rough idea.

Do you think that greens should move in shape and size?

Move, no. Which I understand was the basis for your post. What I do think is that the transition from green to fairway to rough to whatever need not be so sharply defined.

Think of sheep grazing as the method of cutting the grass.

[Michael Rossi]

It is the basis of my post and the discussion. I say keep them in place you say let them "exist".

I feel that the super is hired to maintain the area as the GCA designs it or as instructed by the ownership. Just letting things happen is nonchalant and lazy. I dont feel it would create good golf or healthy turf.  If the super doesn't keep on top of the green or fairway edge the location does move from the original position and it changes the entire set up of the golf hole.

If the sheep congregate around the fairway and munch away in you could end up with........

[Kyle Harris]

Why is it a priori that what the architect intended is what is best?

[TEPaul]

"Think of sheep grazing as the method of cutting the grass."


Kyle:

This might interest you. The club's administrative records show that back in the late 19th century at Myopia, the original lawn mowers were a flock of sheep bought by the club specifically for that purpose. When not being used out on the course for mowing purposes they were penned in next to the court tennis court which today is the maintenace building but when they were taken to the course to mow both the greens and fairways those areas were specifically fenced in with wire to establish an apparently obvious boundary and definition between rough and fairway. So you can see that even then there was an attempt at a real definition between those areas.

Now, what about the area defining the green from the fairway? As you may know the Rules of Golf back in that day did not define an area for a putting green-----other than twenty yards from the cup excepting bunkers and such within that twenty yard area.

I suppose it is possible that Myopia's earliest greenkeepers, Willie Campbell, Robert White and then John Jones might have set the sheep's teeth a bit more forward towards their lips to create a lower cut height in that twenty yard area but somehow I doubt that. 

[Michael Rossi]

Answer a question rather than just posing a new one, you are moving around more than the greens and hole corridors.

Why is it a priori that what the architect intended is what is best?

A priori justification makes reference to experience; but the issue concerns how one knows the proposition or claim in question—what justifies or grounds one's belief in it. Galen Strawson wrote that an a priori argument is one of which "you can see that it is true just lying on your couch. You don't have to get up off your couch and go outside and examine the way things are in the physical world. (wikipedia)

The GCA's are considered to have knowledge/experience as to what is best hence they are paid to set up the course by the membership/ownership to carry out the task of setting grass lines and designating areas for such as greens, tees and fairways.

So by letting the lines exist how is that an improvement on what the OGCA set up?

[TEPaul]

Kyle and Michael:

A priori???

What are you talking about? Don't you both know it is simply not done because it is incredibly dangerous for either a golf course superintendent or a golf course architect to do anything "A priori?" As Michael and Whicki-Whacki says, that's like trying to actually design a golf course or maintain one by lying on your couch just thinking about it.

The only way for a superintendent and architect to work is the opposite approach from A priori----eg A posteriori!!!

Come on guys, wake up, this is pretty basic stuff, don't you know? Or if A posteriori is too tough to contemplate think of if in terms like OJT or Carpi Diem or E. Pluribus Unum or Caveat Emptor. 

[Michael Rossi]

TEP

too many big words for me...

thought we were talking dirt, lines and grass here

[TEPaul]

I'm not sure about lines and grass but I thought I was talking dirty , at least in a Greek or Latin sort of way.

Here's a good one for you; "Statumina pilam arena"  If you don't know what that means I don't think you have any business being in the dirt, grass and lines or golf course architecture or superintendency business at least in any kind of Greek or Latin context. 

[Jon Wiggett]

"Why the need for rigid definition on golf courses?

How does this actually affect playability?

If it could be done, I'd have absolutely no rigid demarcation between different length grasses, just a gentle flow.

Thoughts?"

TEP,

At a club that I used to be at I  used an old fairway mower by setting up the inside edge of the left unit at fairway height and tilting the cut across the units up to semi-rough height on the right hand unit's outside edge. This made it possible to seamlessly flow fairway into semi-rough. It looked really cool  (members hated it and I was told to discontinue )

[Michael Rossi]

"Why the need for rigid definition on golf courses?

How does this actually affect playability?

If it could be done, I'd have absolutely no rigid demarcation between different length grasses, just a gentle flow.

Thoughts?"

TEP,

At a club that I used to be at I  used an old fairway mower by setting up the inside edge of the left unit at fairway height and tilting the cut across the units up to semi-rough height on the right hand unit's outside edge. This made it possible to seamlessly flow fairway into semi-rough. It looked really cool  (members hated it and I was told to discontinue )

Jon

  Cool technique, what turf types did you have?

[Kyle Harris]

Michael Rossi,

I guess the best way to summarize my position is that fairway corridors and hazards should be designed wide enough such that changes/alterations don't much matter - unless we're talking significant percentages, say an order of magnitude.

If the fairway corridor is so narrow that a shift of a few feet over the course of a few years is significant - that is a design flaw, IMO.

As for my use of a priori - in order for me to argue the point that the fairway should or should not move - I'd first have to accept that the architect always knew best. I don't.

[Jon Wiggett]

Michael,

it was a mix between poa, fescue, lolium with a little bit of perennial rye.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()