Best Way to "Reclaim Lost Green Square Footage"?

[David Ober]

Victoria Club, in Riverside, California, is a 1921(?) Max Behr re-design, featuring some really cool greens. Some of these may be original Max Behr greens, and others definitely not. Regardless of their individual provenance, I believe virtually all of our greens have shrunk over time.

Assuming that we take core samples and can ascertain that some/all greens have gotten smaller, what is the best way to reclaim that lost square footage? Is there a "best way" and then also a "not quite as expensive" way? I'd like to go to our board with a proposal that we look at reclaiming what we have lost. We already did it on one green with excellent results, but they did it the "best" way (from what I can tell) and properly prepped and then sodded with bent grass, with the thought that the poa annua would eventually grow in, which it seems to be.

Our greens are nearly 100% poa. Can you just shave a green to the new, desired area and sand and seed with some bent and also plug with poa from a nursery? Or is that folly? At my previous club, Bear Creek in Murrieta, California, it seems like that's what we did on a couple/few greens, and it worked out quite well. Reclaimed some lost space on both 13 green and 16 green that I can remember, and the new, resulting putting surface was true and consistent with the rest of the green.

I do know that the first thing we did at Bear Creek was simply to lower the mower into the fringe areas and also a bit into areas of greenside rough and started that way. There was no sodding whatsoever. After we scalped the new areas, I'm not sure what the exact method was after that, but I would like to know, since it certainly didn't seem very expensive to do, and the results were quite good.

Thanks in advance!

[PCCraig]

David -


Up here in Minnesota the practice with old poa/bent greens that seems to work well is taking excess "plugs" from aeration and putting them on top of the new expanded area once sod is removed. Then it gets watered/rolled/topdressed etc. to match.


Not a scientific explanation but that process works. Takes about 18 months up here for the surface to really blend in an putt as well as the "original" green.

[Tom_Doak]

It depends on how much sand topdressing you have done over the years, and whether the surface of the green has built up much higher than the corners that used to be green.  I have seen courses where the difference is easily six inches, and if that reclaimed ten feet of green is falling off at six inches in ten feet it isn't going to be much use for playable green surface -- in which case you have to go in and do real construction to get the edges back.

[David Ober]

It depends on how much sand topdressing you have done over the years, and whether the surface of the green has built up much higher than the corners that used to be green.  I have seen courses where the difference is easily six inches, and if that reclaimed ten feet of green is falling off at six inches in ten feet it isn't going to be much use for playable green surface -- in which case you have to go in and do real construction to get the edges back.

Thanks very much, guys. Really appreciate the advice. 

[Peter Bowman]

This is a great question and I hope a few more people can chime in with more advice.  I'll be sharing some tips with our Super
My club has experienced the same thing.  From drone shots we can see nearly every green has evolved into a boring egg shape that is hard to recognize from he ground level.   The hips and mounds and contours (forgive me for not using technical terms) around the greens are good indicators where they used to border.  There's also plenty of bent grass in the rough that supports where the greens once were.
We have gradually cut the rough down to fairway/fringe height and gradually cut the fringes to greens cut.  Clearly, the rough takes more time to convert to fringe consistency, let alone a puttable surface.  But in the past 2 seasons we've had reasonable success after punching, seeding and top dressing the expanded areas.  That said, some of it looks pretty ugly at first, and we have a LOT more square footage to expand into puttable surfaces before I and the ghosts of Stiles and Van Kleek will be satisfied. 
Until we have the budget for doing it "the best way", this will have to do. 

[Thomas Dai]

When hand mowers rather than ride-on's were the norm ........
atb

[John Emerson]

This is a great question and I hope a few more people can chime in with more advice.  I'll be sharing some tips with our Super
My club has experienced the same thing.  From drone shots we can see nearly every green has evolved into a boring egg shape that is hard to recognize from he ground level.   The hips and mounds and contours (forgive me for not using technical terms) around the greens are good indicators where they used to border.  There's also plenty of bent grass in the rough that supports where the greens once were.
We have gradually cut the rough down to fairway/fringe height and gradually cut the fringes to greens cut.  Clearly, the rough takes more time to convert to fringe consistency, let alone a puttable surface.  But in the past 2 seasons we've had reasonable success after punching, seeding and top dressing the expanded areas.  That said, some of it looks pretty ugly at first, and we have a LOT more square footage to expand into puttable surfaces before I and the ghosts of Stiles and Van Kleek will be satisfied. 
Until we have the budget for doing it "the best way", this will have to do. 

This is not a good way to support the idea “that the green was here”.  Bentgrass spreads easily, and can contaminate roughs in just a couple years.  If someone dropped a few plugs after aerification, or some bentgrass seed was blown by the wind in that area then it can spread quickly especially around greens that receive tons of water.

[Peter Bowman]

This is a great question and I hope a few more people can chime in with more advice.  I'll be sharing some tips with our Super
My club has experienced the same thing.  From drone shots we can see nearly every green has evolved into a boring egg shape that is hard to recognize from he ground level.   The hips and mounds and contours (forgive me for not using technical terms) around the greens are good indicators where they used to border.  There's also plenty of bent grass in the rough that supports where the greens once were.
We have gradually cut the rough down to fairway/fringe height and gradually cut the fringes to greens cut.  Clearly, the rough takes more time to convert to fringe consistency, let alone a puttable surface.  But in the past 2 seasons we've had reasonable success after punching, seeding and top dressing the expanded areas.  That said, some of it looks pretty ugly at first, and we have a LOT more square footage to expand into puttable surfaces before I and the ghosts of Stiles and Van Kleek will be satisfied. 
Until we have the budget for doing it "the best way", this will have to do. 

This is not a good way to support the idea “that the green was here”.  Bentgrass spreads easily, and can contaminate roughs in just a couple years.  If someone dropped a few plugs after aerification, or some bentgrass seed was blown by the wind in that area then it can spread quickly especially around greens that rece ive tons of water.

Valid point. I’ll add that I have walked with 5 archies at Hooper and they’ve all said the same thing, so I’m basically quoting them. 

[Forrest Richardson]

David — Here in the Western U.S. we most often will map out the areas to be reclaimed and then devise an approximate greensmix that gets us close to the behavior of the old underlying greens profile. That spec is used to blend a new greensmix. Rarely can we rely on simply using what's underneath the areas to be reclaimed.

The reason we typically install "new" greensmix is that some areas have been lost for 10 years, while others may have been lots 50 years earlier. Topdressing, care, root depth and all sorts of variables make it a lost cause — usually. Even if you probed and tested every 5 feet, you would never be sure. It's simply going to be wildly different at the fronts vs. the edges vs. the corners at the back. Once we have good mapping and a plan of how the new surface areas fit in to the surrounds, we then excavate the areas to be expanded.

If there is drainage, we retrofit connections in the new areas. If there is no drainage (pipes), then we make sure the new areas have some sort of outfall, or that they will percolate and move into the green area to be preserved. That part is often an allowance in our work. This way we take each area, and each green, separately. Some get more work than others.

Then we install the new mix. Sometimes we re-use the excavated materials as it has sands and soils (and organics) that we test as suitable, along with new sand, peat, etc. A blend is created, regardless of whether we use old materials.

Once the new mix is placed, we then finish, seed/sod. In a few instances we have stockpiled sod on plastic sheets, then re-install it. I did this in Anchorage last year when we re-built a green that had settled due to the earthquake. We stripped about 2,000 sf of sod and kept it for 3 days. Then re-laid it. Oh, and it rained continually, which it does in Anchorage...a lot.

It boils down to a team effort of your golf architect, super and whoever is doing the work. I would guess that 90% of the expansion work we have done is bid or negotiated to a qualified golf shaper/builder. But, I have never seen these projects without a very hands-on super involved. Maybe only a few times, and it was not ideal.

Tom. D. makes a great point about excessive topdressing. You don't want to have a lumpy expansion area where nothing looks right. That is probably the most common mistake I've seen where clubs have tried to go about this in-house. They go down the "light lifting" path, and — frankly — it ends up looking like they did work — but poorly. I've seen some great work done by Tom D., Gil and C&C at some really famous clubs. The common denominator is that Tom D., Gil and C&C were all there overseeing it.

[Paul Rudovsky]

This does not address the question raised but attempts to explain why greens always seem to shrink during regular maintenance, etc.


First, I have been told by others that when crews cut greens, they almost always err to the inside (thereby shrinking the green).  The math is interesting.  Assuming a green starts off square in shape and 30 yards wide by 30 yards deep (8100 sq ft).  If the green is cut 200 days/year, with 50% of the cuts being 0.25" inside, 25% being 0.25" outside and 25% cut precisely at the last edge cut, then the width and depth of the green will be reduced by 25 inches per annum...and after 5 years, the green will be 26.528 yards in both directions, a total of 6254 sq ft...and have shrunk by 23%!!


Second, as many of you know, fuel was rationed during World War II and I am told there were almost no violations.  Didn't matter how much $$ you had, you could not get more.  I have been told that greenskeepers quickly realized that cutting greens in a circular pattern would use less fuel (90 degree turns burn fuel) and almost all greens were cut in this pattern...and the corners, with the interesting pin placements, became rough.  Anyone have an idea oof this is true or apocryphal?

[Don Mahaffey]

David,
In that climate with cool season grass on greens and warm season grass surrounds, losing green space over time happens frequently, especially given the time frame you note. All it takes is a few seasons of not staying on it and the warm season grass will start taking up space.
With old poa greens having a nursery planted with plugs from aerification is a must. Sounds like you have a nursery, but be sure it’s large enough to sod all the recaptured space.
If the greens are functioning, having some originals and some rebuilt with different materials isn’t that big of a deal if they are manageable. Although you’ll surely get recommendations to rebuild them all for the sake of consistency.
If you’ve got a good maintenance staff, and a good consultant who can work with you to study historical data and poke around a bit, no reason you can’t do the expansions in house as long as you’re not in a big hurry.


Good luck. When I was in so cal I heard a lot about Victoria but never made it there.

[Peter Bowman]

This does not address the question raised but attempts to explain why greens always seem to shrink during regular maintenance, etc.


First, I have been told by others that when crews cut greens, they almost always err to the inside (thereby shrinking the green).  The math is interesting.  Assuming a green starts off square in shape and 30 yards wide by 30 yards deep (8100 sq ft).  If the green is cut 200 days/year, with 50% of the cuts being 0.25" inside, 25% being 0.25" outside and 25% cut precisely at the last edge cut, then the width and depth of the green will be reduced by 25 inches per annum...and after 5 years, the green will be 26.528 yards in both directions, a total of 6254 sq ft...and have shrunk by 23%!!


Second, as many of you know, fuel was rationed during World War II and I am told there were almost no violations.  Didn't matter how much $$ you had, you could not get more.  I have been told that greenskeepers quickly realized that cutting greens in a circular pattern would use less fuel (90 degree turns burn fuel) and almost all greens were cut in this pattern...and the corners, with the interesting pin placements, became rough.  Anyone have an idea oof this is true or apocryphal?

Paul, it was great meeting you  last month after your round at Hooper.

A few have told me that greens shrink and become rounded because, yes, the mowers may err to the inside, but I doubt it’s 1/4” each time they cut.  Now add in the fact that older course greens were mowed by hand, and now most courses use a triplex to mow that require a larger turning radius. 

Your theory on WWII is interesting

[Peter Bowman]

David — Here in the Western U.S. we most often will map out the areas to be reclaimed and then devise an approximate greensmix that gets us close to the behavior of the old underlying greens profile. That spec is used to blend a new greensmix. Rarely can we rely on simply using what's underneath the areas to be reclaimed.

The reason we typically install "new" greensmix is that some areas have been lost for 10 years, while others may have been lots 50 years earlier. Topdressing, care, root depth and all sorts of variables make it a lost cause — usually. Even if you probed and tested every 5 feet, you would never be sure. It's simply going to be wildly different at the fronts vs. the edges vs. the corners at the back. Once we have good mapping and a plan of how the new surface areas fit in to the surrounds, we then excavate the areas to be expanded.

If there is drainage, we retrofit connections in the new areas. If there is no drainage (pipes), then we make sure the new areas have some sort of outfall, or that they will percolate and move into the green area to be preserved. That part is often an allowance in our work. This way we take each area, and each green, separately. Some get more work than others.

Then we install the new mix. Sometimes we re-use the excavated materials as it has sands and soils (and organics) that we test as suitable, along with new sand, peat, etc. A blend is created, regardless of whether we use old materials.

Once the new mix is placed, we then finish, seed/sod. In a few instances we have stockpiled sod on plastic sheets, then re-install it. I did this in Anchorage last year when we re-built a green that had settled due to the earthquake. We stripped about 2,000 sf of sod and kept it for 3 days. Then re-laid it. Oh, and it rained continually, which it does in Anchorage...a lot.

It boils down to a team effort of your golf architect, super and whoever is doing the work. I would guess that 90% of the expansion work we have done is bid or negotiated to a qualified golf shaper/builder. But, I have never seen these projects without a very hands-on super involved. Maybe only a few times, and it was not ideal.

Tom. D. makes a great point about excessive topdressing. You don't want to have a lumpy expansion area where nothing looks right. That is probably the most common mistake I've seen where clubs have tried to go about this in-house. They go down the "light lifting" path, and — frankly — it ends up looking like they did work — but poorly. I've seen some great work done by Tom D., Gil and C&C at some really famous clubs. The common denominator is that Tom D., Gil and C&C were all there overseeing it.

Thank you for such a thorough response.  This method doesn’t sound inexpensive but likely leads to a better result.

How long must the course shut down the greens for (and must it be the entire course at once?).

Also is there an issue about the appearance of seam between the original green and color differentials in the grass not blending in well? Or is that taken care of during the sampling process to be sure the right mix of materials and grass species are present?

[Forrest Richardson]

Shut down depends on how much play, and how much area is being worked. I've seen it all — from keeping play on the bulk of a green, to closing one hole...to shutting nine at a time.

Color variation is usually not an issue if the greensmix is well thought-out. Sometimes it takes a season to smooth out, both in terms of firmness and color.

Don M. makes good points, although I take exception to the part where he states "...no reason you can't do the expansions in house..." There are plenty of reasons. They just present themselves depending on whether you have a Don. M taking care of your club, or someone with far less experience. There are also the variables of time, labor, extent of the project, available equipment, etc.

[Don Mahaffey]

Forrest,
The quote you used of mine is a bit out of context since you left out what was in front of the comma.


Greens expansion work requires patience and high quality hands on craftsmanship.  It is some of the most enjoyable work I’ve done.


I do think using a consultant like an agronomist or architect is a good idea depending on the situation. Often it is very evident where the lost space needs to be recaptured and its more about agronomics and craftsmanship than “design”. On the other hand it is nice to have someone helping who has hands on experience with the process. Matching soil types, tying into drainage, and knowing how far out, or into the green, to take the area of disturbance for seemless tie ins all are the challenges that an experienced consultant can help with. 
What I like about in house work is it is less rushed and the Supt knows exactly who will perform the work.  Doing that side by side with a consultant used to getting his hands dirty on expansion work is a plus...all IMO of course.

[Forrest Richardson]

Good points. We have a superintendent currently who is restoring lost green area around the edges, and he's all on his own. In his case, he has a trace wire to follow and there are no reasons he needs any guidance. There's another thread pertinent that asks, "When should you hire a golf course architect?" My answer is that all clubs should have a golf architect on call. To discuss, use as needed, etc. — even if there is nothing formal being done for several years. There's a benefit.