[Carl Rogers]

Specific targeted issue:
If mowing lines were eliminated, all through the green turf at the more or less the same height, would it be easier to maintain and lower the cost of maintaining the course? or the opposite?

Would it compromise the conditioning? Force the cutting of grass more often than really necessary? Wear out equipment too fast? Consume too much gasoline?

Perhaps many threads that get into the 'new maintenance' might gain some insight if there is a definitive answer to this issue?

[Wade Whitehead]

Carl: I assume you mean that the golf course would be maintained at a single length except for the greens (which would be cut shorter).  If so, isn't this how Augusta was set up for quite a while?  You might be advocating for a longer cut than they used.

WW

[Michael Rossi]

Carl

Depending on the height of cut (HOC).

If you want to maintain a rough HOC between 1.75-3" you may only have to mow once per week. If you want to maintain less than 1" mowing would have to take place minimum twice per week. 2 different types of equipment are necessary. Generally reel mowers for less than 1" rotary mowers for 1.5" and higher. Depending on how smooth or irregular the terrain is.

Pretty self explanatory for the labour, equipment maintenance and fuel costs. When maintaining lower HOC much more stress is put on the turf which results in more inputs, water, pesticides, fertilizer must be smaller (costs more), divot repair becomes necessary, topdressing and verticutting may be necessary.

Depends on where the course is located and what the turf types the course has will greatly affect the cost comparison, and what level of quality is desired.

[Tom_Doak]

Carl:

I've spoken with a couple of superintendents who are finding significant savings in their budgets by going to FEWER mowing heights ... i.e. eliminating the step cut at the edge of the fairway, keeping all the mowed roughs at one height, and mowing the tees the same height as the fairways.

[Jason Topp]

I have always wondered about maintaining large areas of the course not as rough, but as essentially low maintenance areas, where the grass is cut at a relatively short rough height but nothing else is done to it - no water, no fertilizer, no chemicals - if weeds grow, that is part of the game.  To my mind such an approach would might reduce maintenance costs and create a more interesting hazard than universal rough - outcomes would vary and one could find a ball relatively easily.

Would such an approach decrease maintenance costs?  Would it create a nightmare for maintaining the fairways and greens so that any advantage is lost?

[John Foley]

Along these lines, if a desert course is designed as one HOC (fairway height) would it have a significantly lower overall maintenace cost?

No rough to maintaine and the native area is pretty much self maintaining, I sure soem periodic thinnign is required though.

[Tim Nugent]

Goes to type of turf.  Bent would be cost prohibitive for chemicals alone.  Mowing would be increased. Fescue and Bermuda might be less so.

A flip-side to Tom D, a step-cut can allow you to mow the roughs less.  At times , (cool season - July, August, warm season - spring/fall) the roughs arn't really growing but can get a little ratty looking so they are mowed more for appearance than height.  Having a strp cut offsets the appearance because the golfers will see the attention and just assume it's supposed to be like that. 
I did an experiment where I didn't mow roughs for long stretches but maintained a step that included a caddy path back to the tees and a step around the tees and greens. 
I do agree on the tee height, although since fairway mowers don't work on most tees, I like to see tees and approaches mowed with the same triplexes. Plus that balances out the time spent better.  But the range tee and fairway go together nicely.

[Tom_Doak]

I have always wondered about maintaining large areas of the course not as rough, but as essentially low maintenance areas, where the grass is cut at a relatively short rough height but nothing else is done to it - no water, no fertilizer, no chemicals - if weeds grow, that is part of the game.  To my mind such an approach would might reduce maintenance costs and create a more interesting hazard than universal rough - outcomes would vary and one could find a ball relatively easily.

Would such an approach decrease maintenance costs?  Would it create a nightmare for maintaining the fairways and greens so that any advantage is lost?

Jason:  How old are you?  30 years ago, damn near every golf course in America was like that.  No one spent any money between the tee and the start of the fairway.  This was true of some great courses [including Cypress Point] even ten years ago.

[Dan Herrmann]

Carl:

I've spoken with a couple of superintendents who are finding significant savings in their budgets by going to FEWER mowing heights ... i.e. eliminating the step cut at the edge of the fairway, keeping all the mowed roughs at one height, and mowing the tees the same height as the fairways.

That's just what we found at our club. 

[Jason Topp]

I have always wondered about maintaining large areas of the course not as rough, but as essentially low maintenance areas, where the grass is cut at a relatively short rough height but nothing else is done to it - no water, no fertilizer, no chemicals - if weeds grow, that is part of the game.  To my mind such an approach would might reduce maintenance costs and create a more interesting hazard than universal rough - outcomes would vary and one could find a ball relatively easily.

Would such an approach decrease maintenance costs?  Would it create a nightmare for maintaining the fairways and greens so that any advantage is lost?

Jason:  How old are you?  30 years ago, damn near every golf course in America was like that.  No one spent any money between the tee and the start of the fairway.  This was true of some great courses [including Cypress Point] even ten years ago.

43 - my original course was all cut at the same height - about the same height as a lawn.  Now - even muni's have manicured rough.  I don't think many people choose a course because of the quality of the rough.

[BCrosby]

What is the range for "normal" FW HOC today in the US? In the UK?

Bob

[Don_Mahaffey]

Tom Doak is right about fewer mowing heights saving money. Fewer mowers means the equipment techs spend less time adjusting cutting units, you can usually get by with less equipment (big savings), and it’s a little less supervision which means you can spend time on other details.
From a design perspective, building tees close enough to the previous green so they can be mowed by the same mower that cuts the short grass by the green, or close enough to the fwy so the fwy mower can pick them up saves time and money. Even if it means a few more acres of short grass.
 
If the tees are separate from the greens and fwys, try and build them in a connected fashion so the tee tops and tee surrounds are all the same height of cut. IMO, not only does it look better than the “pod” look, it’s a whole lot easier to mow, spray, fertilize…you may have to split ‘em up when you start having 4 or more sets of tees, but in most cases it’s not all that hard to do.
Any time you can mow with a larger machine it’s going to save money on labor because of productivity and in hidden costs because the bigger machines are so much faster and more durable

[Bill Rocco]

Since this is an approriate question about mowing lines...what is the first set of rough or different height of cut to go and what do you keep? Step cut, fringe of the green, approach and fairways at the same cut. I think mowing tees and fairways works well in that tees look their best cut around a half an inch or lower.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()