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.


jeffwarne

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches? New
« Reply #25 on: February 05, 2019, 11:12:03 AM »
As Anthony knows, our Superintendant Gregg Stanley is one of the best in the country and can grow and mow grass with the best of them(to say nothing of his course building/renovation skills). He also has the skill and resources to keep them not only fast, but firm.
At one point our approaches were walk mowed .23 of an inch-putted beautifully.
We had numerous discussions about playability and his opinion was that it helped the average guy by allowing him to putt.
He also liked the aesthetic-which was very clean.
I shared my opinion of reduced options/skill lack with the extreme short cut and also shared that even though SHOULD putt they often didn't due to ignorance/inexperience or wanted to use their chipping/pitching skills more often-when they did they duffed it most of the time.
After experimenting he has settled on a higher cut for approaches(same as the fairways using same riding mower) to produce better contact and more options(no doubt the cut is lower than 99% of all approaches still)
he also mows them TOWARD the green which allows a slightly higher cut with more grass yet allows a forward bounce due to mowing direction.


edit:Of course he also does a lot of rolling -often instead of mowing-(see Anthony video below)-which allows more grass.
I believe he has changed his practices slightly since that video was shot-uses same method on approaches as fairways and mows/rolls toward green everywhere.


The members didn't even notice-they just think their skills improved.


This is not a solution for most clubs as it does require resources/equipment most don't have(but no more than the previous approach-maybe less), but it sure makes our course more fun to play-and is an example of using turf skill and experience to serve both the aesthetic, function and playability.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2019, 08:02:57 AM by jeffwarne »
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Anthony_Nysse

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches?
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2019, 11:18:33 AM »
As Anthony knows, our Superintendant Gregg Stanley is one of the best in the country and can grow and mow grass with the best of them. He also has the skill and resources to keep them not only fast, but firm.
At one point our approaches were walk mowed .23 of an inch-putted beautifully.
We had numerous discussions about playability and his opinion was that it helped the average guy by allowing him to putt.
He also liked the aesthetic-which was very clean.
I shared my opinion of reduced options/skill lack with the extreme short cut and also shared that even though SHOULD putt they often didn't due to ignorance/inexperience or wanted to use their chipping/pitching skills more often-when they did they duffed it most of the time.
After experimenting he has settled on a higher cut for approaches(same as the fairways using same riding mower) to produce better contact and more options(no doubt the cut is lower than 99% of all approaches still)
he also mows them TOWARD the green which allows a slightly higher cut with more grass yet allows a forward bounce due to mowing direction.


The members didn't even notice-they just think their skills improved.


This is not a solution for most clubs as it does require resources/equipment most don't have(but no more than the previous approach-maybe less), but it sure makes our course more fun to play-and is an example of using turf skill and experience to serve both the aesthetic, function and playability.



Yes. Gregg has few peers.


These also help keep up playability and firmess not many have the ability to do. Great use!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXstYhIHeII
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

JMEvensky

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches?
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2019, 11:42:58 AM »


These also help keep up playability and firmess not many have the ability to do. Great use!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXstYhIHeII






Would a fairway roller work well/reduce mowing frequency on grasses other than bent? Zoysia or Bermuda?


Purely a theoretical question as I'm guessing they're fairly expensive.

Jon Wiggett

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches?
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2019, 01:28:19 PM »
Thanks John,


So it would be 36 adjustments per trip out if the Collar and Tees were different heights.  And in peak growing season i'm guessing they would do this every day?



Kalen,


you would only need to adjust once a hole so about eighteen times if cutting at different heights (collar-tee/tee-collar/collar-tee/etc.) Also, depending on the course design there might be occasions when several greens are close together and collars would be cut followed by tees so change over would be less. On a classical out and back could also be all the collars going out followed by the tees coming back so just once. But why change?


John,

Not to quibble, but my math works out to 36.  You have to make the adjustment to do the collar, but then you have to adjust it back on the next tee.  So that's 2 adjustments per hole, unless you're going to make two laps around the course...but then you would only need 2 adjustments  ;D



Okay Kalhen,


let me make it even more clear for you. You start at hole one at collar height mow the collar before altering (change 1) to tee height mow the tee. At hole two you are already at tee height so you would mow the tee first before changing (change 2) to collar height. At hole 3 you mow the collar first before changing (change 3) to tee height and so on through 18 holes. Now just to quibble I would suggest that makes 18 times unless of course YOU are working at a 36 hole complex ;) Naturally the smart guy would try to combine mowing of collars and tees that were close to each other lessening the work load even more which is what I said in my previous post.

Kalen Braley

  • Total Karma: 1
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches?
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2019, 02:14:39 PM »
Jon,

Thanks for the clarification that makes sense now, but certainly seems to be a UK golf course assumption. Doing that on many American courses with a bit of distance between green and next tee, combined with 80-100 yards between the back and up tees would mean an awful lot of back tracking.

...And I couldn't even imagine doing this on a proper cart ball course where you often have 100+ yards between green and next closest tee...

Jon Wiggett

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches?
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2019, 03:06:36 AM »


  A must reason for mowing at different heights is as I stated above-different turf. When we maintained tifeagle approaches/collars & tees at Pine Tree, we never cut above .200" because, well...it never really grew any higher. Really, didn't grow any higher. Then why not use it on the whole course and just mow the greens as the rest of the course would not be higher than .2"? You just saved the golf industry millions. Fairways were maintenance at .400-.550" depending on time of year.


I think you're showing a lot of ignorance to think that you can blanket an entire course, wall to wall with Tifeagle. It makes me question your knowledge of turfgrasses in general.


We have tifeagle greens. Any Superintendent (and many on this site) will tell you the amount of labor that it takes to maintain an ultradwaft. The topdressing, veritcutting, aerification, brushing, handwatering, rolling, moisture management, fungicides & foliar feeding it takes for 3-4 acres of putting surfaces. This is all without running carts on it.
  We maintained 11 acres of tifeagle at Pine Tree (greens, tees & approaches) I cannot imagine the cost to maintain 100acres of it. Save the golf industry money? 100% opposite of that. It would be the worse sustainable surface we have seen yet. Worse that having bentgrass fairways in a southern climate. Worse than overseeding bermudagrass and sodding it back every season. It wouldn't even be close.
Just one example-$350/$400 an acre to  prevent bermudagrass decline. Now spray that several times on 100 acres. You see my point. That does not include all the other disease that ultradwarfs are susceptible to.





Wow, you really didn't even feel the wind as that one flew right over your head did you Anthony!


So you say my knowledge of turfgrass is questionable. Well now, I am going to go out on a limb of ignorance here with the following so please humour me. It is true that if you mow a turfgrass at a certain height and then stop there is a short period of time (a couple of months often) where it will not grow much in height but after this period passes it thins out and get more height. Ergo, your assertion that tifeagle never really grows higher than .2" is well, just plain wrong.


It would have been nice instead of just reeling off a lot of unconnected platitudes that you had made a stab at answering the questions put to you.

Jon Wiggett

  • Total Karma: 0
Re: Why did courses begin to mow tees lower than .5 inches?
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2019, 03:08:08 AM »
Jon,

Thanks for the clarification that makes sense now, but certainly seems to be a UK golf course assumption. Doing that on many American courses with a bit of distance between green and next tee, combined with 80-100 yards between the back and up tees would mean an awful lot of back tracking.

...And I couldn't even imagine doing this on a proper cart ball course where you often have 100+ yards between green and next closest tee...



Kalen,


you are correct that it would depend very much on the individual course. Here in UK we are blessed that many of our courses are quite compact in nature.


Jon