PeteG et al:
If what you said about a dull green or light green sheen on fairways being automatically true about dangerous drought stress and immediately impending dead grass, then I have some serious backing up to do!!
Honestly, I know very little about agronomy and I need to learn anywhere I can from valid and accurate analysis and opinion of others. All I'm trying to do is set a goal for seriously increased speed "through the green" only, on my golf course. The reason I say seriously increased speed "through the green" is far too often a full blown drive is apt to plug or even back up on our fairway (and approaches) and this is not always a result of seasonal or nature rainfall--it might be some of that but it's also a result of managed irrigation. I just can't see how that can be right or inevitable.
We have bent fairways of less than ten years of age! And the thing that just constantly confuses me is I here people like you saying what you did about dangerous drought stress and immediately impending dead grass and I hear a large number of other supers, and including our local longtime USGA regional agronomist saying something else.
Many of them say this color and speed I'm describing, (maybe I'm not describing it correctly), is really not that dangerous or indicative of immediately impending dead grass. So many have said that it is an indication of stress but stress that is not really that dangerous given that color. Some say it's even healthy! They do say the next phase if unirrigated would be some browning out but even that stage (browning out) is a long way from dead grass. They say even with browning the next natural rain or irrigation cycle will tend to bring the grass back to green again very quickly!
So what am I missing here? Are we possibly just talking about some other kind of grass strain (other than bent) that just reacts entirely differently to this managed condition?
The thing that's the most confusing is not just that people in the business disagree on this but the enormous extent of their disageement! It almost like at high noon one says it's midnight out and the other says it's high noon!
What I think I understand so far is to acheive firm and fast conditions the subsurface (subsoil) has to allow good water infiltration and plant root penetration. It all has to have some good depth to it for water infiltration and root depth penetration, in other words. I guess basically the water or moisture remains longer at a greater soil depth, the plant root then naturally seeks that deeper water through a deeper soil structure if the root can penetrate the subsoil well. And basically the deeper both can manage to do that the better it is and the healthier the plant will be.
Obviously, I understand that if you have a toothpick deep root structure, as I think JohnH said he had, you can't very well create firm fast surface playing conditions as the surface is going to have to be kept quite moist most of the time.
Logically this all seems to make sense to me as this really isn't rocket science here. Afterall, it doesnt' take that much intelligence to understand that two things are going to promote firm and fast conditions for the bounce and roll of the golf ball. One, a drier, firmer surface and subsurface (to some degree of depth) and, two, a grass condition that is not thatched and puffy.
If you have a surface and immediate subsurface that needs to be wet most of the time and a grass condtion that is thatched and puffy you aren't going to have much bounce, roll and run of the ball--just the opposite actually--plugging and backing up.
I mean all we're talking about is soft versus firmer ground and grass here, what the hell is so complicated about that? I do understand that the grass needs it's moisture but is what we're talking about here all about at what soil depth that it gets it? I do know what hydrophobia is, believe me; I realize the complexities of remediating it, but that's another question and another problem to be solved or not.
By the way, I don't want to put my super on the firingline here with even a single member. If we ask him to try to acheive this goal of firm and fast playing conditions "through the green" we mean to defend him totally!! But we want to start by totally analyzing if it's doable and at what cost. I think the "playability" of really firm conditions are awesome and I think the membership will too but I need to know at what cost and at what danger level it's doable. If the cost is too high or the danger level too great then we won't do it, and they will be the judge of that, certainly not me alone.
This is all an attempt at a thorough analysis of a goal of "playability". It is not in any way a "demand" for a "playbaliltiy" without a thorough analysis of the cost and consequences. But the analysis comes first and it seems to be so difficult to even analyze as so many in the business are all over the place on this issue. I realize it's not an easy issue but it can't be this hard to figure out.
If we can't do it, we won't do it, obviously, but if we can I want to know how and minimize potential mistakes in the process.
BTW, Oakmont, Shinnecock and Royal County Down had that "light green sheen" and I played those courses for four plus hours and looked at them for much longer and I didn't notice any hydro/agronomic resuscitators standing by needing to rescue the agronomy from immediately impending death in 20 minutes either. Actually nobody with water was even in the vicinity.
So what am I missing here, what the big mystery and the enormous spectrum of opinion from those in the business? Am I right about the water infiltration and root depth thing? And is this mostly about differing strains of grass or just some other issue that a lot of people don't really want to come to grips with for other reasons?