[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

yes I do have a copies of two of his books. They are both very informative with much that is useful. I have used it to help form my outlook on turf grass maintenance but do not consider it a bible to be followed to the letter. Most of the research and trials done were carried out in a climate that was significantly different to the UK's, as such it is a reference point. JA's book is based on a mixture of research and experience both happening in the UK. Again, I find it very informative containing much that is useful. It is a reference point but most certainly not a bible.

If I had to give a greens chairman one of these books it would be JA's as it is very direct in its explanation, easy to understand and keeps things quite simple. For Dr. Beard, you really have to have a passion for turf management otherwise it is unlikely you will get past the foreword.

The 3mm thing is a loaded argument. If I cut to 3mm then I cannot keep fescue successfully. I encourage grasses such a poa which are thirsty and disease prone therefore I cannot maintain decent putting surfaces without fungicides and irrigation. But why 3mm? What is the reason for this from a maintenance point of view?

I want to encourage a robust, quality playing surface in my greens which includes fescue hence I mow at 5mm year round. I am however not looking for a pure sward but a healthy mix of various grasses that will allow the sward to adapt the changing seasons. Because I mow higher and have a sward that is not only naturally resilient but also under far less stress I need much less irrigation and suffer less from disease.

I am not saying either is right or wrong.

Ryan,

you ask what I have against coring. Probably similar reasons as to why you prefer the graden over it. If I had to chose I would use the graden too because it not only removes more material than coring it also allows you to replace it in the same pass. It is quicker and more efficient plus the sward recovers quicker.

You also ask 'Lets say you take over push up clay greens that are soft, full of thatch virtually all poa. Do you not have to be more aggressive for a few years than what you prescribe above?

Of course you must be more aggressive but like you I would not use coring but rather coring, however I do not have this situation to deal with on a daily basis. If you had perfect greens with no thatch problems I doubt you would be aggressively coring them on a regular basis.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Adrian,

Purchase made.

[Thomas Dai]

To be totally honest your 'uptopia' is perfect for the UK and I am well behind it but it is just not practical in other areas of the world. I think most UK people do think green is good but I think a good percentage like it pale, the problem we have with here is annual meadow grass is the most aggressive for 80% of the time, thriving in our sub 55F dampy climate. If we all had perfect swards of fescue from the start we could probably keep them. It is hard to kill grass by doing nothing in the UK because we rarely go 30 days without water. Mark Chaplin might be able to add more re the South East climate as they can probably get near real drout. If it gets dry raising the height of cut is the default stage 1 do. Raising the height on greens = slow greens = not good. The demand from the golfer that fast greens are better is the real dilema. I like 4.5mm in the summer and 6.5 in the winter, I am 54 it is what I learned most clubs take it to 3mm in the summer, we do occasionally most of the time we are probably 3.75mm because that's where my headman feels comfortable, we have a lot of days that are important with competitions and society days and not so many times where we can rest.
As a rough guess I think we had our sprinklers on the greens for 50 days this year. I think we switched the fairway sprinklers on 12 times, that you could say "is it worth having them". It gives back up to keep them alive just incase our fairways can go brown pretty quick but we like them a very pale green and we practice evrything the Jim Arthur way for our fairways.Buy Dr Beards book...Practical Greenkeeping. I think you will enjoy it as a good reference book and you can read just two or three relevant pages at a time on certain subjects.

A very informative post Adrian covering many aspects so most interesting.

I can't recall whether or not I've asked this before, but do you use a greens iron? A few courses I've played this year seem to be keeping the cut a bit higher than previous but achieving more speed by using a greens iron, if not on a daily basis, then certainly on the morning prior to the first tee-off in an event or competition.

atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - We are often not that far apart...horses for courses.
Paul - I think you will enjoy that book.
Thomas - We don't use an iron though I am open minded. My headman has not squealed loud enough that he wants one.  I did buy an old one with a view to using it as a construction tool (it was a bad idea) but its never made it out of the shed. We have used vibrating rollers to gain speed on a few occasions borrowing from Chipping Sodbury GC a local club.
I think I was taught not to roll and that is still embedded in my thoughts, but I could be convinced if scientifically someone could do the maths and it edged in favour that compaction was not an issue.

[Marc Haring]

I used to use vibrating rollers at Cumberwell mainly after tining with the Wiedemann. I think research had revealed that the greens became truer after aeration and rolling compared with what they had been before. The heaving affect of the aeration followed by rolling effectively ironed out surface bumps. Of course it didn't stop the golfers moaning about all those holes in the greens.

[Paul Gray]

For those that suggests the Pinehurst model was unrealistic on a limited budget, there's a very interesting article in October's Golf Course Architecture magazine in which reference is made to Don Mahaffey and Andy Staples and how a similar model is being adopted at their Hobbs Rockwind project because of the limited budget. A separate thread is of course running and you can decide for yourselves just how utterly worthwhile the project appears. As one poster put it "golf needs more of this"

Potential copyright issues prevent me from quoting the article but the reader is left in little doubt that 'lean and mean' is as accurate a description of the financials as it is of the playing conditions.

[Thomas Dai]

.....what happened before the sprinklers? Was there no golf in America?

Paul, this is one of the most amusing lines I've read herein for ages. - (no slight intended though)

Adrian - thank you

Ryan,

You mentioned hiring a graden machine. A course I know well bought one and have been using it 1-2 times per year for the last couple of years. When top-dressed properly the greens still putt well pretty mcuh immedialtely afterwards. Unfortunately the headman still uses the sprinkers a lot so over the longterm a 'thatch-out, water in again' cycle has developed, which seems a little self defeating. Still, a new headman has now been appointed so a move forward may be seen.

A couple of points -

I have seen 5 inch holes at 3 ft intervals bored all over the surface of a green and then filled with a well-draining material. The bores were to a depth or 10-15 ft. This seemed to have a quick effect for mega-wet clay bowl greens on a clay soil but to soon yet to say what the long term effect will be. I've also seen individual 5 inch holes bored to a similar depth and backfilled in selected low spots on greens for the same reason. Anyone have experience of such approaches and the longterm effects?

Thatch in the greens come up for discussion regularly. What about when fringes, approaches, fairways, not so maybe rough, are significantly watered? What are the thatch issues and remedies in these areas?

Off to buy the book mentioned earlier. I hope there are some copies still on the Amazon shelf!

atb

[Sean_A]

Paul

Part of the problem with your brown is down and cheaper theory is:

a lot of people don't want courses that fast

some courses aren't designed to be fast

climate and weather do have a profound effect on what is achievable (and I say this from the perspective that the browner things get, the higher the risk of losing grass)...the more guys flirt with a fine line, the more knowledge and experience they need...not all supers are equal

even if the super and club are with brown, they have to know how to manage it...how many greens have you seen that are full of thatch?

I don't actually see that many courses get the maintenance right very often...even in the UK.  Which suggests to me that it is more difficult get it right, there isn't sufficient knowledge to get it right, there isn't sufficient budget to get it right, there isn't sufficient will power to get it right.  

Ciao



 

[Adam Lawrence]

For those that suggests the Pinehurst model was unrealistic on a limited budget, there's a very interesting article in October's Golf Course Architecture magazine in which reference is made to Don Mahaffey and Andy Staples and how a similar model is being adopted at their Hobbs Rockwind project because of the limited budget. A separate thread is of course running and you can decide for yourselves just how utterly worthwhile the project appears. As one poster put it "golf needs more of this"

Potential copyright issues prevent me from quoting the article but the reader is left in little doubt that 'lean and mean' is as accurate a description of the financials as it is of the playing conditions.

Paul - thank you very much for your consideration of our copyrights. If you're not a GCA subscriber you can read the mag for free online. Visit this link http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/subscribe.aspx, scroll to the bottom of the page where you'll find the online edition registration form, fill in your details and there you go. Process is a bit clunky, for which I apologise. But it's there.

Adam

[Adrian_Stiff]

It is mass of continued dilemas. You schedule some maintenance programme for a certain day and then the weather is wrong, so you delay it three days and then the group of golfers playing that day are interupted with sand on the green or holes.

On busy courses it is a case that you need to delete tee times, less busier courses don't have the same problems but then they may need to hire the equipment in and then the weather is wrong.

Thatch is a natural process of living and dying material. The accumulation needs to be taken away. We do our fairways a few times a year but some clubs might not do it at all, greens we look to bi-monthly verti cut with about 4 goes with the Sisis Tm1000 (like a graden) top dress with straight sand we aim to go monthly in the growing season so 7 or 8 times. Very occasional we have run the vee mows through the semi rough, tees we are once a year verti-cutting, approaches monthly, I like the policy that you can always see the verti cut lines, if you can't see them they need doing.

Most people that golf in the UK are happy with the £££ they pay for the quality they receive. In the UK I don't see a retrograde situation where we go back a century, though who knows what is around the corner with chemical bans.

[Jon Wiggett]

Most people that golf in the UK are happy with the £££ they pay for the quality they receive. In the UK I don't see a retrograde situation where we go back a century, though who knows what is around the corner with chemical bans.

Adrian,

when this happens it will radically alter the maintenance scene here in the UK. I also do not think that there will be a return to practices from 100 years ago wholesale as understanding and machinery has advanced significantly in the intervening time. I do suspect the answer will be for golf courses to push a different definition of quality. What many do not think about is that there will almost certainly be a limitation of, if not outright ban on irrigation especially in the south/ southeast.

I like the policy that you can always see the verti cut lines, if you can't see them they need doing.

I am intrigued to know the reasoning behind this policy.

Jon

[Sean_A]

Most people that golf in the UK are happy with the £££ they pay for the quality they receive.

I find this incredible.  I think there are a load of over-priced no name courses featuring uninspired design and lackluster maintenance.  Cheap golf doesn't equal good value golf.  Cheap golf is simply cheap golf and I think there is incredible pressure on this segment of courses/clubs in England.  Moving into the best courses, many of them get enough punters to pay the high green fee.  There is still pressure, but far less imo. 

Ciao 

[Adrian_Stiff]

Most people that golf in the UK are happy with the £££ they pay for the quality they receive.

I find this incredible.  I think there are a load of over-priced no name courses featuring uninspired design and lackluster maintenance.  Cheap golf doesn't equal good value golf.  Cheap golf is simply cheap golf and I think there is incredible pressure on this segment of courses/clubs in England.  Moving into the best courses, many of them get enough punters to pay the high green fee.  There is still pressure, but far less imo. 

Ciao 

My quote meant or was meant to mean. In the UK golf at £800 golf courses get £800 value, there are options always to golf better (more expensive) or cheaper, people can pick the type of quality and pay for it.
You can think that there are over priced no name course that don't equal good value golf, but your opinion is subjective there is more of an objective result since it reflects in the company accounts. If the car park is full it is a good indication of fair value.

John - Because nature is not all about dates and sometimes the lines take 24 days to grow in and sometimes 64 days, so those grow in lines are a better indicator to me.

[Paul Gray]

Paul

Part of the problem with your brown is down and cheaper theory is:

a lot of people don't want courses that fast

some courses aren't designed to be fast

climate and weather do have a profound effect on what is achievable (and I say this from the perspective that the browner things get, the higher the risk of losing grass)...the more guys flirt with a fine line, the more knowledge and experience they need...not all supers are equal

even if the super and club are with brown, they have to know how to manage it...how many greens have you seen that are full of thatch?

I don't actually see that many courses get the maintenance right very often...even in the UK.  Which suggests to me that it is more difficult get it right, there isn't sufficient knowledge to get it right, there isn't sufficient budget to get it right, there isn't sufficient will power to get it right.  

Ciao



 

Sean,

I agree with everything you've written. And everything you've written is part of the problem. But we must distinguish between 'can't sell it' with 'can't do it.' Again, we need to stop confusing the two issues.  The moment this thread began people were throwing up arguments about it just not being possible in certain climatic environments and consistently those arguments have been shown to actually be about style over substance. Any minute now I'm expecting John K to appear and explain to us all, again, why Pinehurst will be a disaster longer term.   

The position of many greenkeepers, even here in the green and pleasant land you've chosen to make your home, is to take the 'target golf' model (I apologise to those offended by the use of a somewhat overly simplified term) as essentially the default position. And that being the case, the whole thing is self perpetuating in that kids and adults new to the game experience that model and assume it to be the ideal. We can hardly be surprised then when Golfer 1 is heard to say " those greens were rubbish because I couldn't even hold on 7 iron n them."

There is no suggestion however on my part that a clay based layout in the midlands is ever going to be playing like a furiously quick links course at the end of a hot, dry summer but the whole point of the thread is where the empathise is placed. We need to shift perception of what is ideal as currently we have links courses moving away from firm and fast and towards a more flat model, a fact which you'll acknowledgement I'm sure, given your views on classic courses and sprinklers.

[Craig Sweet]

"Those guys produce the product they are told to produce. Again, this conversation began by identifying what works best, not what sells best"

Works best? God, what a loaded, and yes, arrogant statement! 

Paul. there is no such thing as Golf BI  (Before Irrigation) because golf courses have been irrigated, in one fashion or another, since the game began in the US.  You are also implying that golf course irrigation expanded because "green" sells. How about irrigation expanded because golf course turf would die every year, and the costs of irrigation was cheaper than maintaining a course that died off every summer?

Your argument that it isn't "proper" golf unless the grass is brown and hard as a rock ranks right up there with Melvin's BS about the use of carts not being "proper" golf.  Please...give it a rest. There is no such thing as proper golf, nor should you expect every course to present you with the conditions you deem appropriate for "proper" golf. Supers will alway want to do what they deem is "proper" for the grass and the conditions they are faced with.  Firm and fast is not always going to be best...in fact, in MOST cases it stresses the grass, puts it on the edge of tipping over (or totally kills it), and costs more to consistently maintain firm and fast.

[Paul Gray]

Paul. there is no such thing as Golf BI  (Before Irrigation) because golf courses have been irrigated..........

You happy with that statement, yeah?

And come to think of it, did you even read my last post where, again, I was clear in pointing out that no one is suggesting all surfaces are equal.

[Paul Gray]

For those that suggests the Pinehurst model was unrealistic on a limited budget, there's a very interesting article in October's Golf Course Architecture magazine in which reference is made to Don Mahaffey and Andy Staples and how a similar model is being adopted at their Hobbs Rockwind project because of the limited budget. A separate thread is of course running and you can decide for yourselves just how utterly worthwhile the project appears. As one poster put it "golf needs more of this"

Potential copyright issues prevent me from quoting the article but the reader is left in little doubt that 'lean and mean' is as accurate a description of the financials as it is of the playing conditions.

Paul - thank you very much for your consideration of our copyrights. If you're not a GCA subscriber you can read the mag for free online. Visit this link http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/subscribe.aspx, scroll to the bottom of the page where you'll find the online edition registration form, fill in your details and there you go. Process is a bit clunky, for which I apologise. But it's there.

Adam

Adam,

No problem.

I am a subscriber and your man, Michael Geraghty, was very helpful recently when my July edition got lost in the post. He was good enough to send me another copy so no complaints about the service!

[Jon Wiggett]

John - Because nature is not all about dates and sometimes the lines take 24 days to grow in and sometimes 64 days, so those grow in lines are a better indicator to me.

Adriahn,

I understand the growing speed idea but was more interested as to why you wanted to always see the lines.

Jon

[Jason Thurman]

.....what happened before the sprinklers? Was there no golf in America?

Paul, this is one of the most amusing lines I've read herein for ages. - (no slight intended though)

If "proper golf" means going back to fairways cut at 2 inches and greens rolling at 3 on the Stimpmeter, or sand greens, then yeah, you could probably keep a course alive in those conditions without irrigation. And if that's what Paul is advocating, then I'm cool with it. It's just not what I would prefer. I like cell phones, power seats, hi-def TV, and tight, firm fairways that lead to fast, firm greens. I guess I'm just a modern guy.

[Paul Gray]

.....what happened before the sprinklers? Was there no golf in America?

Paul, this is one of the most amusing lines I've read herein for ages. - (no slight intended though)

If "proper golf" means going back to fairways cut at 2 inches and greens rolling at 3 on the Stimpmeter, or sand greens, then yeah, you could probably keep a course alive in those conditions without irrigation. And if that's what Paul is advocating, then I'm cool with it. It's just not what I would prefer. I like cell phones, power seats, hi-def TV, and tight, firm fairways that lead to fast, firm greens. I guess I'm just a modern guy.

Jason,

As I've also been clear about, 'on' and 'off' aren't the only options. Maybe Don Mahaffey could explain this to you in more detail.

[Thomas Dai]

Why should folk in some parts of the globe, and it's a big globe, expect to be able to play golf on grass 7-365 and others not be able to?

So, taking this debate forward a bit, what are the next steps in taking golf, 'proper' golf, indeed golf of any kind of, forward? How about -

*undersoil heating or golf courses in a giant heated dome - so those in cold climates can play or play more often during the current off-season
*on course lighting - so the game can be played 24-7-365

and why are these steps any more artificial to some than widespread use of irrigation systems that are used variously now?

Golf has, after all, been a seasonal game in most parts of the globe for it's entire existance, why shouldn't it stay seasonal?

atb

[Craig Sweet]

My friend from the Indian Reservation...up on the Hi-Line....says you play the course as it is presented to you on the day you play it...you shut up, adjust, and play. He said "somedays the wind howls and you you keep the ball low....other days it's wet so you wear your rubbers and carry a towel".  He said there is no such thing as "proper golf", and "worrying whether you are doing it right is pointless and takes the fun out of it".

[Paul Gray]

My friend from the Indian Reservation...up on the Hi-Line....says you play the course as it is presented to you on the day you play it...you shut up, adjust, and play. He said "somedays the wind howls and you you keep the ball low....other days it's wet so you wear your rubbers and carry a towel".  He said there is no such thing as "proper golf", and "worrying whether you are doing it right is pointless and takes the fun out of it".

I'd suggest your friend has pretty well defined 'proper golf,' whether he calls it that or not.

[Dave McCollum]

Put me in the cheering sections for the evangelists.  I've tried being one--putting my money where my mouth is--and couldn't afford the result.  I skimmed through this thread not very carefully and am quite certain I have nothing of substance to add.  I do have a sand based golf course with an extremely low maintenance budget that plays beautifully when firm and fast.  Convincing golfers, our customers, that this is "proper golf" is, from my point of view, impossible.  We'd be broke and closed long before we won the argument or even brought a bit of enlightenment.  Yes, we could do it, but there is not a soul on my staff that thinks it is a good business strategy. 

This summer we had a very unusual weather event:  we got nearly 4 inches of rain in 36 hours, in an area that averages 10 inches a year.  So much rain on the surrounding land above our canyon location that everything flooded and caused a landslide when it reached us.  It deposited so much material on the course (one hole) all we could do was remove the rock, raise the irrigation heads to the new surface, and re-seed the damage.  Fortunately it was mostly sand, hundreds of thousands of tons of it.  We turned off the irrigation for two weeks in August--unheard of!  The grass went crazy growing like mad.  We mowed around the clock trying to keep the course playable.  I was horrified about how lush and thick the rough became.  You get the point, we did what we could to manage the best we could.

Despite all of these problems, we got the most compliments ever about the conditioning of the golf course.  It was a grass factory, not a decent playing surface, and our unsophisticated golfers loved it.  I'm sorry to say that I don't have the guts, energy, or the pocket book to fight the chlorophyll junkies.

My resigned approach to a maintenance meld is to keep it watered and green during the growing season and enjoy the golf when we blow out the pipes and turn off the pumps for the rest of the year.  We're blowing out now.  With some luck and weather, we should have some fine golf for the next five or six months.             

   

[Adrian_Stiff]

Probably one of the best posts I have seen on here to highlight the GCA way versus the Reality.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()