Is the Disturbance Theory just a fanciful dream or the wishings of dusty advocates of traditional golf from yesteryear?
Well, not according to Keith Scruton, Head Greenkeeper at Colne Golf Club in Lancashire, who reckons ...
YOU GOTTA ROLL WITH IT!
That blessed theory
I would hope that we have all heard of the Disturbance Theory by now. It has been preached by Richard Windows and Henry Bechelet for long enough. It discusses how to set the right level of management to encourage the finer grasses into our greens, while improving playing standards and enabling an increased level of year- round play etc.
But, is that just a fanciful dream or the wishings of dusty advocates of traditional golf from yesteryear? Just like the water powered car, great in theory but, in practice, it’s a dead duck. Right? Wrong! This is the story of how I found out.
Setting the standards
My experience of the Disturbance Theory is that it is unbelievably simple in practice. It is all about setting standards and achieving goals. As greenkeepers we know when our greens are good, when they are at their best and when the have to be at their best. The Disturbance Theory is all about allowing the sward to progress whilst still maintaining those highest standards.
A common misconception is that playing standards have to drop to achieve sward species progression. This is a great urban myth alongside others like the names of the Captain Pugwash characters. DT is all about maintaining playing standards. We determine the standards being set at present and we work to optimise them in future.
Our ideal
Colne Golf Club is a terrific little 9-holer set near the Pennines in east Lancashire. We are moorland/parkland in nature and set on extremely heavy soils. The course was established over 100 years ago in three farmer’s fields. I kid you not that the fields were named on the map as “Bog”, “Marsh” and “Swamp”. Although the club have limited resources, the attitude here is progressive, and we have spent a lot of time and effort trying to improve the drainage of the site, the condition of the bunkers and naturalising the rough. Our aim for the greens is to create firm, smooth and true putting surfaces that are well paced. Part of our aim is to transition the annual meadow grass dominance to a better blend that includes finer bents and fescues, but we wish to achieve this without compromising on playing qualities along the way.
Setting our objective
Through the agronomic consultancy process between Course Manager and agronomist it is possible to flesh out the desired playing quality parameters throughout the year. This will help guide the management that aims to achieve the desired results. This should centre on objectives for speed, smoothness and firmness and take into account organic matter content, construction, sward composition, water infiltration and percolation and previous management, all working around our individual climates.
These factors give a clear indication of where you are and what needs to be done. In the final DT article “Pride and Joy” the four phases of “transition” greenkeeping are described. These describe the steps necessary to progress the sward from Poa annua dominance towards a better blend with an increased level of bents and/or fescues. Initially, we work to create decent drainage and a sand dominated soil profile, then we work to provide the required conditions for the finer grasses to flourish before thinking about discouraging the annual meadow grass and then keeping it from re-invading. Each phase requires a different strategy, so it is important to know where you are and what you need to do to progress to the next stage. For instance, our greens are phase 2.
We have built the base of our management pyramid, done the hard aeration work to improve water migration, root depth and removed organic matter (see table). We have topdressed to establish a good, firm relatively free draining base to our sward. This was managed without affecting, too much, the overall playing characteristics. It was just a case of highlighting the need and planning appropriately, and doing so with sensitivity to both golfer and timing each process to maximise the results. Our strategy is now firmly on overseeding and keeping damaging treatments to a minimum.
© Images C. Andrew Wilson
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