News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

"turning" mowers
« on: January 26, 2002, 05:41:48 AM »
I've never really understood what the problems are with "turining" mowers. Why there needs to be a collar around greens, for instance, to "turn" the mowers and the other day we were talking to the super of PVGC and about the very thin strips of rough on the edges of PVGC's fairways (really the only evidence of rough on the course). He said it was needed to turn the mowers.

Why is it needed? What if there was no rough collar on the fairway or collar around the green? What would the mower do if there weren't these collars? Would it do some kind of damage to the greens and fairways or would it just look strange for some reason?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian andrew (Guest)

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #1 on: January 26, 2002, 06:21:39 AM »
Turning a mower causes much more wear than running it straight. The wheels pull at the turf and feet also can cause damage. The longer the turf, the more resistant to wear.

The collar on the fairway is a choice of a transition zone, personally I don't believe this is fuctional. The collar on the green allows for a transition between the cutting heights and the grasses. I've always assumed the collar helps minimize scalping and tied in the height of the fairway at the same time

I'm sure the superintendents will explain this one better, or corrct any errors I have made. But thats how I understand it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lou Duran

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #2 on: January 26, 2002, 07:45:34 AM »
I think that Ian is correct.  On the greens you will often see considerably weaker, damaged turf around the collars/fringe where the mowers often cut twice (the second cut to tidy up the edges) and begin their turn.  We've seen considerable  advancements in maintenance equipment, but this is one area where I wish that technology would run amuck (though I doubt that the market is large enough to support great investment).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

PGertner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #3 on: January 26, 2002, 10:06:20 AM »
The golf course equipment industry is VERY competitive.  Yearly, hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on golf course equipment.  If anyone wants to see first hand the inner workings of the golf course maintenance industry, come to Orlando in 2 weeks and check out a small gathering of over 20,000 supers, exhibitors and university turfgrass researchers in Orlando.  

Yes, we do need many more dollars committed from golfers and golf organizations for turfgrass research, no doubt about it.  Research and development of new varieties of golf friendly turfgrasses with greater wear tolerances could address this issue!!!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Peter Galea

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #4 on: January 26, 2002, 11:58:35 AM »
What is needed is careful and well trained greenkeepers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"chief sherpa"

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #5 on: January 26, 2002, 03:05:03 PM »
I've often thought that it would be wise to use two mowers (triplex and walking) in some circumstances...I'm no superintendent but did spend one summer on a crew, and spent a fair bit of time cutting greens.  

The two mower system would allow the guts of the green to be cut, and the walking mower would be used to cut the perimeter.  This would permit some of the tougher corners of the greens to be cut and reduce compaction.  It would also help preserve the greens original dimensions as it's more accurate than riding.  The small mower could be pulled in a wagon behind the triplex if staff was a problem.

Anyone know of a course doing this?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Michael_Stachowicz

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2002, 02:30:35 PM »

Quote
I've often thought that it would be wise to use two mowers (triplex and walking) in some circumstances...I'm no superintendent but did spend one summer on a crew, and spent a fair bit of time cutting greens.  

There are many Superintendents that employ that philosophy.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2002, 03:22:50 PM »
Mike:  I like to think I'm observant I've never seen it in 25 years of golf...perhaps I'm in the wrong countries.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

nick inberg

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #8 on: January 27, 2002, 04:01:58 PM »
Some supers do this to help with the dreaded "triplex ring".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Michael_Stachowicz

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2002, 06:10:00 AM »
Avoiding triplex ring is exactly the reason why we mow with a triplex and do the cleanup cut with a walk mower.  Next year I hope to do the same thing on tees.  I also have a triplex do the cleanup cut on the fairway to avoid five-plex ring.  I though everybody did this.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ajf

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2002, 09:25:52 AM »
a ring is ring is a ring.  triplex ring or walk behind ring, what's the difference?  the triplex mower in most instances causes less compaction.  it's a heavier unit of course but the weight is disributed over 3 tires instead of a small steel drum. i can't imagine what a green would look like that has been mowed with a triplex and cleaned up with a walker.  that's an awful solution for a poor maintenance practice.  a collar around the greens is more of a playability feature to me.  you can turn the mower in the rough just as easily as on a collar.  asusming the rough isn't 4 inches.  you ceratinly don't want to have mowers turning on the greens though.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tony Ristola

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2002, 10:15:14 AM »
Mike:  It was sounded like too much common sense for someone not to use such a combo.

ajf:  I'd say it's the difference between getting stepped on by an elephant and an infant.  I wouldn't call it a poor maintenance practice, but thoughtful.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Don_Mahaffey

Re:
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2002, 11:51:25 AM »
ajf,
Actually it's a damn good solution to preventing maintenance problems. Summer triplex clean up passes on bent greens under heat stress leads to dirt rings. Lots of guys who can't walk mow all the time use walkers for the clean up pass, so I'm not sure where you are coming from. Maybe if you posted under your name and told us which course you managed we could debate this issue a little more in depth.

I have a small crew and I have to triplex on the weekends, but since we quit doing clean ups with the rider our edges are a lot better. I guess I don't understand why using two different mowers is a poor practice as long as the results are good.

BTW, I have some pretty tight curves on my greens and the triplex, regardless of any compaction issues, simply could not consistently mow the clean up pass without bruising the turf. Remember, when mowing a tight turn the cutting unit on the outside may be fine, but the one on the inside is basically turning in place (toro 3100's don't have individual reel control) which can harm the turf.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

nick inberg

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2002, 02:39:59 PM »
well said
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2002, 03:22:29 PM »
Thanks so much for all this info--I can use it in the future I know. There is no way I could imagine a guy like me ever hearing all this stuff anywhere else--I really appreciate it!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #15 on: January 28, 2002, 03:27:13 PM »
Oh, and I forgot to tell all my GCA buddies--I just made it back onto the Green committee after being off it for about ten years.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Doug Wright

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #16 on: January 28, 2002, 03:31:56 PM »
Congrats TE on your return to the committee--now you can practice GCAspeak on your colleagues. :)

Just curious...What (in addition to turning mowers) do you know now that you didn't know way back then that you might impart to the committee...

All The Best,

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Twitter: @Deneuchre

J. Stachowicz

Re:
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2002, 04:12:24 AM »
Couple of other points on this:

1. Triplex mowing on greens which was very popular in the 70's and early 80's is largely responsible for lost green space. Greens with some very interesting edges were slowly becoming boring circular greens. Many courses are now trying to recover this lost space and trust me it ain't easy to get it back.

2. I think a good point to remember as far as turf goes is "lighter is better"

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2002, 04:50:58 AM »
J. Stachowicz:

Could you elaborate a bit on once you loose green space to mowing patterns it isn't easy to get back? What are some of the ways to get it back?

Doug:

If you're asking me what I know now compared to what I knew ten years ago, I really wouldn't know where to begin. A lot, an awful lot more. I believe I can see the entire logic of a golf course's architecture now and the way it fits together with the way it's cared for--I guess I could call that generally the "maintenance meld" and how that can vary from course to course with types and styles.

Back then I thought you could and should just do whatever seemed reasonable in sort of a separated or incrmental sense--I don't think that's true any more.

But I would hope that what I really learned since then is to always keep in mind to know what you don't know! And I also found a lot of people to help me with what I don't know that are really good at it. The more you get into this subject the more you see the commonsensical logic of it all, I think--and that it's really not that hard to pass along!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Baker

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2002, 05:05:37 AM »
Tommy Paul:

Are you also the chairman of the "restoration" committee? I would hope so, I really mean that. The need for continuity AFTER the main physical elements of the restoration project are complete is just as important as realizing the need for restoration in the first place. Many research hours and a lot of effort by a lot of dedicated people can go down the drain in a hurry with out a standing committee in addition to the regular green committee.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

J. Stachowicz

Re:
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2002, 05:16:58 AM »
TEPaul:

      It's not as easy as scalping down an area to greens height and voila you now have instant green. The transition from rough or collar height to greens height must be made more gradual. It usually involves significant topdressing, overseeding, aerifying and much TLC to complete the transisition. Probably the end result contains more poa than you want to admit, for the next several seasons this new "green" area is a problem spot until more desirable grass is established. There are other ways such as resodding, especially if you have a nursery green with turf that matches your greens turf. I suppose you could also remove the old sod and seed an area, but this takes the area out of play for some time.
     It is much easier to take your time on a clean up cut with a small walk behind mower, to ensure the original dimensions of the green than it is to try and reclaim that space.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #21 on: January 29, 2002, 05:38:01 AM »
TE Paul,
The superintendant at Skokie CC used both methods or restoring green mentioned above during the restoration process. Some of the old green boundary that became fairway was reclaimed by slowly lowering mowing heights. this process took 2 seasons to create healthy turf using the TLC mentioned. The expansions on the back or sides of greens were sodded from a nursery created from cores of existing greens. The goal was continuity with existing poa dominated surface. The results were good from a playability and visual standpoint.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #22 on: January 29, 2002, 05:38:34 AM »
Ed:

No, I'm not although I did ask for that. We don't have a standing restoration committee. The restoration plan (which is also a long range master plan) went to the Green Committee.

Gil Hanse asked specifically that a permanent committee be put in place and so did a number of others but as yet they haven't seen the efficacy of it. The next best thing, I guess is to try to establish a very definite Implimentation and long range maintenance "process" or "procedure" within the green committee and hopefully in writing!

I haven't given up on the permanent committee idea, though,  and I'll definitely be turning to you as an example of why it's necessary and how. I think when we start to get into it they will see why it's needed. Hope too many mistakes aren't made beforehand but a few probably already have been.

You know the way it goes--courses going through all this have a way of thinking they're the first one's to do it and that they are sort of operating in a vacuum. I do tell them that is definitely not the case and that there are all sorts of clubs out there that have done it who would be more than happy to collaborate on anythng and everything. So I'm not worried--yet.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #23 on: January 29, 2002, 06:24:09 AM »
Thanks for the green expansion advice. In our restoration plan August of 2002 the course will be shut down until the following spring and in that phase the greens will be expanded back to their original dimensions (that has never been done before). We have excellent aerials and the 1939 one is as good an indication of the ideal dimensions of the course as could be found.

In the first phase the greens will be gassed and then expanded back to their original dimensions and reseeded with A4. At the same time as the green expansion the greenside bunkering will be restored.

A4 made me nervous at first as I was worried that this new "superfast" strain might hang us up the creek with speeds that needed to be maintained too high for our green slope and contours. I have since gotten some really good feedback from good sources that this is really not the case and that the ongoing OJT feedback on A4 is not as scary as at first thought. Our super is really excellent on greens and totally understands the speed/contour syndrome! In other words "softening" our greens will never really be an option! The membership is not into this and whoever may be will get outflanked in an NYC second.

As far as I know our greens have never been regrassed going all the way back to William Flynn in 1924. Is this possible?? We have a real evolutionary hodge-podge on our greens, although they have always been excellent and the reasons to redo them now are two. The timing is right to combine it with our green expansion but more so to get ahead of the poa/anthracnose problem!

This is a fairly early Ross course (1916-1919) and many of the Ross greens are squarish! Some of them have some interesting corner "flares" that were let go over the years. These will be really neat to restore and play! Some of the other greens are Perry Maxwell and they have their own look and playability. There are a couple of RTJ greens that aren't bad at all.

One green will be redone, added to and redesigned! This is hole #7 that is a Perry Maxwell ANGC's #13 "concept copy". The hole has devolved into sort of one dimensionality over the years with tree growth in the pay-off area and also some green redesign of Perry's green redesign. The hole concept is a straight "go/no go" short par 5 with interchanged features from ANGC basically accomplishing the same theme, concept, playability, options, whatever. I call it a "concept copy" because the hole is unrecognizable to its prototype although the theme, shot values etc are the same!

On this green-end redesign we are going to sort of work backwards and establish and set all the options for all the levels of players and then just carefully put them in the ground always mindful that what's being done will accomplish the playability were looking to get!

Since this green redesign was Maxwell we're hoping to do the green in such as way that the spectrum of the playability on and around the green will reflect Perry's internal style and surrounds. We even have a number of contours, mini-tiers, concave/convex, boomerang green features we can sort of work off of on his other holes that can be mixed around on this particular redesign to get the exact playability we want. I think it will work really well and make the hole about three times more optional and exciting than it's been in many years.

Some of the members are concerned this all might make the hole easier and I tell them it might if you hit three or four really excellent shots but if you don't the scores will be higher than previously.

I tell them that the sign of a hole that is not working well is one that has a realitively narrow scoring range and a hole that's a very good one has a far wider scoring range! I believe this to be true and the membership seems to be buying this logic.

Our super pulled out every stop imaginable this year to fight an attack of anthracnose and he did one helluva a remedial job. Given that we don't feel it prudent to take our present greens through that particular crap shoot for the forseeable future regrassing was decided upon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Steve Okula

Re: "turning" mowers
« Reply #24 on: January 29, 2002, 01:44:00 PM »
To Don and ajf,

Don is right, clean up with walkers IS a good solution to a maintenance problem. I have my own experience which proves it, and no one will ever convince me that triplex mowers are not more detrimental than the walk-behind.

ajf said "a triplex mower in most instances causes less compaction" (than a walk-behind).

In 30 years of greenkeeping, that's the first time I ever heard anyone say that.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »