If you wanted the truth, then this is it
Our ultimate aim is to create a consistent set of well-paced, smooth and true surfaces for putting that also receive, hold and then release well-struck approach shots. We want to reward good approach play with greens that receive a well-struck ball but discard loose and inaccurate play. Fair enough. Consistency of firmness is also important, and we must work to achieve surfaces that don’t fluctuate too much throughout the year. Essentially, for optimal performance, we want the greens to retain the desired level of firmness in both wet and dry conditions. So, what exactly is the desired level of firmness for golf greens?
STRI Research
The last major study on the playing performance of UK golf greens was carried out by STRI in 1996 (Baker et al) with the aid of funding from The R&A.
This study involved the assessment of the playing qualities of greens (speed, smoothness, firmness etc.) from a range of course types situated throughout the UK. The survey also measured the key agronomic factors that affected playing quality, as well as canvassing player perception about the green performance. In total, seventy-four courses were visited and three greens were tested on each course.
Surface firmness was measured using the Clegg Impact Hammer, and the results were correlated against ball impact behaviour and player perception. At Clegg values beneath 76* gravities the players perceived the surfaces to be too soft. As Clegg values increased, the ball stopping distance from simulated 5-iron and 9-iron shots also increased. The study concluded that Clegg values of between 76-125* gravities were acceptable for play, with the top end of the scale being deemed to provide fair
but challenging surfaces. Measuring Firmness
During our pilot study inspections in 2009, we measured the surface firmness using a new golf specific version of the Clegg Impact Hammer (with 0.5kg rounded head test mass dropped from 0.5m). The moisture content of the upper soil profile was also measured to contextualise the results. For both tests a 9-point sampling grid was employed (left-middle-right from front-middle-back) and an average (mean) was calculated for each green. By using these standardised sampling protocols our aim was to provide an accurate assessment of the situation and produce results that could be compared against our targets.
Setting Targets
During our visits we would take the readings, calculate the results and then discuss their meaning with our clients.
79
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132