[jeffwarne]

So let's assume you wanted to build or maintain a green with older school slope and/or tilt without the obligatory flat tiers we say in many modern or reshaped greens today.


Say pinning an area with threeish degrees of slope and and having slopes and tilts of 5-7 degrees in areas.


Would using a modern hybrid (insert the latest and greatest here) but mowing to a greater height be the answer?
Or are there better,(or older) grasses/hybrids that perform better running 8-10 on a stimp?
Assume a southernish(hot summers-cold winter nights) climate so some kind've warm weather grass.


i.e. smoothness, cost of maintenence and firmness would be the goals, not high speed.(though slope would create scary downhillers and sidehillers)


Would a modern hybrid designed to run 11-13plus not function as well(and therfore pointless) when maintained to run at say 9?


Would there be any advantages to using an older variety of turf (other than being locked in to never having high modern speed)


Surely there's a great modern turf out there that requires minimal inputs and performs better(smoother, firmer,less grainy, less expensive) than older grasses that can perform well at old school speeds.
Maybe something designed for modern approach and fairway areas?

[John Emerson]

If I understand you correctly you’re wanting a crazy contoured green and yet still be puttable?  If this is the case just raise the mowing height. Maybe .200-.250”  Most cultivars of bentgrass perform really well even at .500”.  And 9 ft on the stimp meter is still pretty quick.  Especially if the surface is smooth and firm.  There’s a huge misnomer that lower heights of cut = faster green speeds.  It’s true, but only to a certain point. Surface firmness and turf uniformity is the biggest factor.

[jeffwarne]

If I understand you correctly you’re wanting a crazy contoured green and yet still be puttable?  If this is the case just raise the mowing height. Maybe .200-.250”  Most cultivars of bentgrass perform really well even at .500”.  And 9 ft on the stimp meter is still pretty quick.  Especially if the surface is smooth and firm.  There’s a huge misnomer that lower heights of cut = faster green speeds.  It’s true, but only to a certain point. Surface firmness and turf uniformity is the biggest factor.

Thanks John.
Bermuda-bent not really an option or desireable.
If it's just a question of raising height-all the better.
Crazy not really the idea, just not flat tiers-something you would see at nearly any classic green not rebuilt/desloped in the last 30 years.
Something with enough tilt and firmness where an approach angle matters, and an uphill putt is considerably different than downhill.The 5-7 degree areas might be false fronts

[Tom_Doak]

Not sure I agree with John's answer.  Some of the newer grasses would be better adapted to higher cutting heights and/or less fertility, and some would not do so well under those conditions.  But, hardly any course goes that route when they put the latest and greatest grass on their greens, so there is not a lot of data to judge them by.

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff, if you’re just spit-balling here without regard to real-world desires of the modern day golfer....


You’re talking about tilted planes that slope greater than 4% overall. You’re kind of talking Tillie-type greens complexes, right? If the greens are slowed down even just a little bit from todays expectations, the 3-5% slope areas are pinnable, with some exceptions. There’s still some greens out there that have those grades, but they almost always are neutered due to excessive green speeds (or “minimal rolling friction”, for those that want to argue that greens have no inherent speed).


There’s a sub-argument that would support re-introducing grain into the mix, but who wants to hear it?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff, if you’re just spit-balling here without regard to real-world desires of the modern day golfer....


You’re talking about tilted planes that slope greater than 4% overall. You’re kind of talking Tillie-type greens complexes, right? If the greens are slowed down even just a little bit from todays expectations, the 3-5% slope areas are pinnable, with some exceptions. There’s still some greens out there that have those grades, but they almost always are neutered due to excessive green speeds (or “minimal rolling friction”, for those that want to argue that greens have no inherent speed).


There’s a sub-argument that would support re-introducing grain into the mix, but who wants to hear it?

Joe,
You got the gist of the idea.
Can it be done without "re-introducing" grain.
When I started at Long Cove in 1988 the greens ran about 8 and there were many scary fast, difficult putts(if above the hole), yet the greens were very smooth and true.They obviously weren't common bermuda but something of 1981 vintage.
Would newer strains be able to "withstand" (a funny word choice) a higher cut and not be grainy.
"8" with potential for a scary "10" in maybe a club championship would be the goal, allowing reasonable tilts and slopes, some pinnable, some not.
Bermuda able to run that speed with less grain(one of my concessions to modern agronomy if possible) would be ideal-but as Tom notes, few have probably gone with modern strains but maintained them anywhere but as fast as possible.

[John Emerson]

Not sure I agree with John's answer.  Some of the newer grasses would be better adapted to higher cutting heights and/or less fertility, and some would not do so well under those conditions.  But, hardly any course goes that route when they put the latest and greatest grass on their greens, so there is not a lot of data to judge them by.

Well actually there’s tons of data to judge these grasses by.  All the ntep trials have varied mowing heights and they’re normally well above typical club greens mowing heights. Especially the Bermuda’s.  When I was a turf research assistant at a regional ntep site all of the Bermuda’s were mowed at .25 all the way up to half inch.  Ntep trials are never mowed at .100 or crazy low heights that many clubs use now.  We would do whatever it took to just barely keep the grass alive.  No fungicides, ultra low doses of fertilizer, and only received water when plant death was eminent.  The ntep trial data would be perfect to answer his question.  I haven’t looked at it recently so i can’t truly answer his question, but Jeff if you  have some time ntep.org is an invaluable resource to make grassing decisions.  It’s a lot of info to decipher, but This data is as good as it gets.  Find a regional site with similar climate to your area in question then read the data.  If you find one you like it might not be commercially available though.  Many cultivars evaluated aren’t available for sell/release.


Is your situation hypothetical or real?  If you give more info (location for starters) I might be able to get you started on choosing something if your situation is real.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()