“Unfortunately, fast stimpmeter readings have gained bragging rights within the profession as badges of honour or marks of skill, however they reflect neither”
Kevin Munt, Principle Consultant, KMgc
THE NEED FOR SPEED
Pitchcare’s cleverly juxtaposed articles in last months magazine on heights of cut for golf greens inspired me to rustle up some views on the topic from within the greenkeeping profession. Hence, I posted a thread on the subject of the Windows/Bechelet versus Evans approach to mowing heights for greens on the BIGGA website forum to see what the mood was out there at the ‘coal face’. Well the thread has had over 21,000 ‘views’ to date, making it by far the most popular thread ever. I guess that the two articles were also the most thumbed pages in Pitchcare last month as well. This goes to show that green speeds are the single most emotive topic in golf course maintenance, and rightly so. After all, the whole reason for playing the game, and thus having greenkeepers, is to put your ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible.
Having got this overwhelming response, I thought that I would keep the ball rolling!
Blue Sky or How high!
Firstly I would like to comment on one element from each of the last articles. While the STRI’s article was pure common sense, built around the age-old disturbance theory, it was couched in ‘blue
sky’ terms that are unrealistic in most practical applications. A statement like “to favour the development of browntop bents and fine fescues in golf greens you simply have to set the correct environmental conditions” is far too simplistic. There is nothing ‘simple’ in setting
environmental conditions, even those under our control, and establishing bent/fescue dominant swards is very tough - achievable, but tough. I am also a realist and believe that the Disturbance Theory only works if you already have a bent/fescue sward that does not need ‘fixing’.
On the other hand the article by Greg Evans worries me greatly, because it gives entirely the wrong message to club members. The approach to ‘protecting’ a short course is to have your greens at tournament level stimpmeter readings for as long as possible, is in my opinion irresponsible. Whilst I admire Greg for sharing his views with everyone, and being brave enough to talk openly about an approach that other course managers may well be operating, I still consider his article dangerous in the hands of the unqualified! While I support the efforts of this magazine, I hope not too many club committee officials, or the low handicap
‘keep ’em fast brigade’ get to read Pitchcare.
The quick and the dead
The ‘low mow’ approach to gaining pace has been around since the early seventies. In 1984 I started at Hankley Common Golf Club and started mowing the greens every day; a first. Then I started cutting at 3/16” (4.5mm) all summer and, for the Open Regional qualifier in 1985, lowered the height of cut to 1/8” (3.5mm) for the whole week of the event. Whilst the greens were faster and truer
from that moment on I probably started the decline of the fescue content in the greens. In those days if you cut your greens at 1/8” for more than one week it was seen as poor greenkeeping practice. Shouldn’t it still be?
Of course, you can get good pace out of a fescue/bent green at a higher height of cut than you can from an Annual meadow grass green.
In the late eighties, for the World-Match Play Championship, I cut the greens on the West course at Wentworth three times a day and rolled them with a turf iron as well each day in October, so I am not unfamiliar with the low mowing of Poa annua to gain speed. By the way, we never got them over 11 on the stimpmeter and
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