Jon,
I wouldn't call you a liar but you are contradicting yourself. If you don't use the roller to gain speed, then why not just raise the HOC 1.5mm, leave the roller off, and speed be damned?
Steve,
Where is the contradiction? I would recommend thinking about what you post.
As to the idea that rolling does not compact. Any object moving across the green will cause some compaction however small but in the case of a green iron the benefits can out way the negatives. As for the research, I do not know much about it but its reliability would depend on who paid for it?
Jon
Jon,
You contradict yourself here in your reply #18:
“
When I rolled it was to allow me to cut 1.5mm higher and still have the same speed which was better for the sward overall so you can call me a liar if you want but I did it for an improved sward and not for speed.”
You say you rolled to increase the height of cut and maintain the same speed, but then again you’re not rolling for speed. Why, then, are you rolling,
if not to improve speed over what it would be without the roller?
I would say that the reliability of a study depends on the qualifications and integrity of the researcher. I’ve heard these ad hominem attacks before. It seems to be a favorite tactic of certain British greenkeepers who would refute science in order to promote some preconceived notion or an agenda of some sort.
Here’s one study paid for by the University of Oregon and executed Dr. Rob Golembiewski and published in the USGA Greens Section. sr.lib.msu.edu/article/golembiewski-bluegrass-2-4-11.pdf
Another study by the University of Arkansas:
http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/557-11.pdfAnd the University of Michigan:
http://turf.umn.edu/files/2012/09/Lightweight-rolling-around-the-world.pdfThere are many others. If you were interested, you could look them up yourself. Just Google “golf green rolling” and you’ll see a multitude of results.
American University researchers receive funding from many varied sources. Since the results of the rolling studies seem to be unfailingly consistent in the conclusions, either the studies are valid, or there is an elaborate conspiracy promoted by turf equipment manufacturers with tentacles into virtually ever turf research institute in the world in order to promote the nefarious and ultimately negative effects of lightweight rolling.
All the studies I’ve read come to the same conclusion: that moderated frequency of lightweight rolling does not harm the turf, but rather the opposite, it has several beneficial effects besides improved green speed (dollar spot resistance, surface smoothness, less stress on turf in general compared to mowing).
Now, if you can put forward any evidence to the contrary I would be happy to listen.