Classic green changes, contours...more pins or less traffic?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adding to the classic green and severe contour threads, I find it interesting that most changes are driven by advancements in agronomy that results in increased speed, but those advancements have not led to more traffic resistant turf. If we can breed, develop and grow grass that has the ability to provide density at ultra low heights of cut, shouldn’t we also be developing grasses, and greens construction methods that also allow us to maintain greens with smaller pinable areas?
I actually believe most of the modern grasses we’ve developed are better at handling traffic and maintaining density at lower heights of cut. But the way we manage them to be fast…low nutrient inputs, super low heights of cut, frequent rolling, vertical mowing, aerification, are just as likely to cause traffic issues, or more so, than golfers foot traffic. 

Should we be developing maintenance practices and grasses that meet the need for speed and the ability to handle more concentrated traffic? Why do we always need more pinable space? Is it for more for variety of pin locations, or to help spread out the traffic so our grasses can handle the intensity required to keep them super fast. The former is always the one we hear about, but I have a feeling the latter is what drives many of the changes.

[Adam Clayman]

Don, How many courses actually suffer from too much traffic? Pine Valley? Prairie Dunes? Why should an industry worry about a few outliers? 

Point being, with all the ridiculousness being discussed today, involving the rules of the sport, I doubt these finer point questions will have much of a shelf life because is killing itself.

Bifurcating, anchoring etc. etc.

I for one miss JVB's participation here. Another fine example of the USGA's separation from the everyday common man golfer.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
Sort of my point. I think the traffic issue is over stated. We hear that we need more pins, more teeing space... but most courses are not seeing increases in rounds, golf as a whole is not seeing increases in rounds, yet we hear of these changes need to be made and the traffic issue is one we hear about a lot when it comes to greens. I believe a lot of it is driven by the fact our grasses can't handle the management intensity required to keep greens ultra fast. I never hear, "I need more green space because I kick the daylights out of my grass all season"...more like "every green must have X amount of hole locations and each hole location must have XXXX amount of level area and for every 10,000 rounds these numbers need to be adjusted by a factor of X..."

So, are the changes a result of advancement, or regression, in agronomy.
I think its worthy of discussion beyond the normal talking points we hear from the industry.

[Jud_T]

Don,

Excellent topic.  Particularly on private clubs that only do say 15k rounds a year, I'm not sure why so many possible pin positions are necessary, aside form the inevitable tournament/rankings chase.  Additionally,  particularly on more severe/interesting greens, there is often one ideal pin position which could be used more frequently if more resistant strains were developed.

[Bill Brightly]

Jud,

When talking about great old courses, I don't think more pins are "necessary" but they certainly are "desirable." Many greens have lost entire quadrants of pin placements because of greens stimping at 10+. (And you will never get a membership to accept slower greens...) If a slight re-grading of those sections brings back pin placements originally contemplated by the architect, I think it is a good idea. We did this at Saucon Valley Weyhill and it is so much more fun.

For example, the 13th hole is a short, sharp dogleg right par 4. Prior to the re-do the back right section was completely useless, and therefore, you knew the pin would be in a 5 yard radius almost every time. Now you are totally surprised with the pin placement every time you make the turn.

[jeffwarne]

Jud,

When talking about great old courses, I don't think more pins are "necessary" but they certainly are "desirable." Many greens have lost entire quadrants of pin placements because of greens stimping at 10+. (And you will never get a membership to accept slower greens...) If a slight re-grading of those sections brings back pin placements originally contemplated by the architect, I think it is a good idea. We did this at Saucon Valley Weyhill and it is so much more fun.

For example, the 13th hole is a short, sharp dogleg right par 4. Prior to the re-do the back right section was completely useless, and therefore, you knew the pin would be in a 5 yard radius almost every time. Now you are totally surprised with the pin placement every time you make the turn.

Bill,
You make a great point about opening up more pins, therefore more interesting golf.

You state "you will never get a membership to accept slower greens" and that is the common mantra which is indeed quite hard to argue with.

At some point though I have to believe people may start to think different.

currently many memberships accept 4-5 hours rounds, escalating dues, minimums,declining memberships,carts running amok in search of more revenue, and
a miilion other problems making ends meet.
So they accept a lot of things most find undesireable.

I wonder if someone posed the opportunity to reduce maintenance costs, eliminate the need for future renovation costs, both of which could reduce membership costs enticing more people to stay,, and create a whole new set of interesting pin placements and options, adding to the fun...........by suggesting letting the greens run foot or two lower.

Of course some clubs aren't struggling, but many who are should entertain this option, rather than trying to escalate the arms race with the club across town, resulting in a more boring course that needs speed for interest.

[JNagle]

Don,

Excellent topic.  Particularly on private clubs that only do say 15k rounds a year, I'm not sure why so many possible pin positions are necessary, aside form the inevitable tournament/rankings chase.  Additionally,  particularly on more severe/interesting greens, there is often one ideal pin position which could be used more frequently if more resistant strains were developed.

Don - there are a number of clubs that have a concentration of those rounds within a much smaller window than those below the Mason Dixon line.  We do see many instances where the # of rounds directly relates to compaction wear on greens with few hole locations.  Couple that traffic with the drainage pattern of a green (is the area sometimes wetter than other portions during high number of rounds), walk-on and walk-off patterns, direction of slope (in the sun or shade), sunlight exposure, sub-surface drainage.....

[Tim Nugent]

I never hear, "I need more green space because I kick the daylights out of my grass all season"...more like "every green must have X amount of hole locations and each hole location must have XXXX amount of level area and for every 10,000 rounds these numbers need to be adjusted by a factor of X..."
So, are the changes a result of advancement, or regression, in agronomy.
I think its worthy of discussion beyond the normal talking points we hear from the industry.

Excellent observation.
Treating the symptom, not the cause will never cure the patient!

[Brian Chapin]

Traffic stress is a huge part of the problem IMO.  At Paramount we have 3 greens (9,12,14) that only have 2-3 pinnable locations.  If it wasn't for traffic stress I would have no problem rotating the hole locations in just those 2-3 areas, but from a management perspective we have to change it up to give those areas a break during the week which results in complaints about the greens being "un-fair".  There are obviously certain cultural practices we can implement to alleviate that stress/wear, but they tend to be a bit disruptive to play and therefor are not always an option.

So I would say that I agree with Don that if we could develop better ways to manage the traffic stress the issue of "too few hole locations" would be much less of a concern.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

We golfers really have become a bunch of spoiled brats, haven't we?

"They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’ "

[JMEvensky]

We golfers really have become a bunch of spoiled brats, haven't we?

"They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not weep.’ "

Now you're going biblical?

I disagree to this extent--golfers (those who are most passionate about the game) haven't become spoiled brats so much as those making the decisions have catered to the spoiled brats among us.The net result is "spoiled brats" have become the lowest common denominator and most easily marketed to.

[Peter Pallotta]

J -

I've always liked the image/poetry, and was looking for a place to use it.

And I think you're right. 

P

[jeffwarne]

golfers (those who are most passionate about the game) haven't become spoiled brats so much as those making the decisions have catered to the spoiled brats among us.The net result is "spoiled brats" have become the lowest common denominator and most easily marketed to.

That may be the best post I've seen this year

[Kyle Harris]

Don:

Are you meaning to discuss traffic wear in terms of the mechanical damage caused to the plant as well as the compaction from increased traffic or one of those specifically?

I've always been lead to believe that the USGA Construction Method developed from the need to overcome compaction issues on a number of older putting greens, and this is why I ask.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kyle,
Just the traffic idea in general, nothing specific. Resistance to wear be it from humans or machines.

I'm aware the USGA method was developed to deal with compaction and drainage/porosity.

The question is, do our modern greens under modern agronomic practices handle traffic any better then older methods? We're always talking about agronomic advancements, but have we advanced in the area of wear resistance?

[Tom_Doak]

I've always been lead to believe that the USGA Construction Method developed from the need to overcome compaction issues on a number of older putting greens, and this is why I ask.

Kyle:  I've always suspected that the compaction issues were about trying to CONSTRUCT a new green with modern equipment, instead of trying to maintain the new green with modern equipment.  You can build a sand green with a bulldozer even in the rain, and not worry about compaction; but building a soil green in adverse conditions means you are often waiting on perfect soil moisture conditions.

[Kyle Harris]

I've always been lead to believe that the USGA Construction Method developed from the need to overcome compaction issues on a number of older putting greens, and this is why I ask.

Kyle:  I've always suspected that the compaction issues were about trying to CONSTRUCT a new green with modern equipment, instead of trying to maintain the new green with modern equipment.  You can build a sand green with a bulldozer even in the rain, and not worry about compaction; but building a soil green in adverse conditions means you are often waiting on perfect soil moisture conditions.

That's very interesting. I thought it was from golfer traffic...

Honestly would have NEVER thought of that.

Don:

I know Rutgers performs a number of traffic trials in an effort to cultivate traffic-resistant bentgrasses (and even poa annua!). I think the methods are quite novel as most of the focus of the past twenty years has been on disease and drought/heat tolerance.

[Tom_Doak]

I've always been lead to believe that the USGA Construction Method developed from the need to overcome compaction issues on a number of older putting greens, and this is why I ask.

Kyle:  I've always suspected that the compaction issues were about trying to CONSTRUCT a new green with modern equipment, instead of trying to maintain the new green with modern equipment.  You can build a sand green with a bulldozer even in the rain, and not worry about compaction; but building a soil green in adverse conditions means you are often waiting on perfect soil moisture conditions.

That's very interesting. I thought it was from golfer traffic...

Honestly would have NEVER thought of that.

Trust me, you'd think of it if you ever tried to rebuild a native-soil green in adverse weather.

[Jaeger Kovich]

I've always been lead to believe that the USGA Construction Method developed from the need to overcome compaction issues on a number of older putting greens, and this is why I ask.

Kyle:  I've always suspected that the compaction issues were about trying to CONSTRUCT a new green with modern equipment, instead of trying to maintain the new green with modern equipment.  You can build a sand green with a bulldozer even in the rain, and not worry about compaction; but building a soil green in adverse conditions means you are often waiting on perfect soil moisture conditions.

Really? That would make everything so much easier... Guess that hadn't occurred to me since I'm so used to usga/topsoil. Especially since you dont have to adjust and finish the tie-ins/area outside the mix, separately. That cuts out so much time and in most cases will increase quality... Probably cheaper too!