Poor green performance is usually the result of restricting the maintenance programme to suit the golfers rather than being an indication of bad greenkeeping or agronomy
Our aim was for everyone to understand the situation fully before we formulated our maintenance plan. We set our firmness targets depending on the style of the course, with reference to the research data from 1996 and also from our experiences during the pilot study itself. Remember that our aim is to provide challenging surfaces that perform well throughout the year. For simplicities sake, the table above describes what the Clegg readings mean and shows our target ranges for parkland and links style courses.
In general terms, for parkland courses
we were looking to achieve Clegg values of 80-100 gravities through the main playing season and, for the links, a firmer 100-130 would be more appropriate. The target for authentic heathland might be 90-110. During the winter, or through
extended periods of wet weather, we would be working to stay within these ranges if possible. The targets we set always reflect the specific demands of the course and they seek to optimise performance at all times. Clegg readings towards the higher end of each range would provide a more demanding (or less forgiving) surface. So, that is what we are aiming to achieve, but what did we actually find in 2009?
The 2009 Firmness Results
The following results were obtained during 2009 (May - October). We gathered data from approximately 600 greens from 110 courses, making it one of the biggest studies of UK golf greens ever carried out. The results were obtained for courses in our areas in the North/East of England and Central/Eastern Scotland. In general, we took readings from
three greens on each course to represent the range of standards being set, but we sometimes took more measurements to help build a complete picture of the situation. We feel that the sample size and sampling method we used gave a good overall representation of the 80
standards being set in our area last year. The majority of the course types were either parkland or links and there were approximately 300 results for each. The following charts show the firmness figures being achieved for each style of course.
Parkland results
The table below shows the firmness results that we obtained from parkland greens.
So, for parkland courses, only 50% of
the results fell within the optimal performance range of 80-100 gravities (of which two-thirds were in the softer 80-90 end). Such surfaces are firm underfoot and receive well-struck balls with a bounce forward and then a check to stop.
This type of surface is ideal for a parkland setting and provides good control of well-struck shots, but offers less control for poorer ball striking. Perfect.
Our advice for greens in this range would have been focused on the ways to keep them here for as long as possible in the year. We would be targeting specific levels of organic matter content in the upper soil profile and would be communicating the need for essential (and possibly unpopular) maintenance work to achieve them. In this range we
are happy with the standard being set, but are not complacent or self congratulatory.
Nearly 50% of our parkland greens, however, were softer than the optimal range. A quarter of all the results were in the “receptive” range (70-80 gravities). Here, the surfaces tend to receive and hold the majority of approach shots, and offer no real premium on good ball striking, so make them flattering for average play.
A further 12.5% of the parkland results
were softer still, being within the “soft” range (60-70 gravities). These greens stop a ball dead and it will leave a large pitch mark. Such soft surfaces become damaged with pitchmarks, and they footprint under play to make the putting surface uneven. Around 5% of the parkland greens we measured were below 60 or “very soft” and unstable/unplayable. So, a significant proportion of the all parkland greens we measured during the 2009 playing season were too soft. Our advice for these greens would have been focused on firming them up. The soil moisture and organic matter content measurements will have completed the picture and helped focus this work properly. We will have discussed improving the drainage and reducing the influence of
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