G
Over the past eight years, Greg Evans (Course Manager at Ealing Golf Club and Chief Agronomist for the advisory company, Complete Golf Solutions) has devised course maintenance plans for different golf courses that allow greens to be cut as low as 2mm, yet remain sustainable. Evans' methods initially encountered a surprising amount of opposition from certain quarters in the greenkeeping profession. Some worried that the greens would die while others thought that Evans was upping the stakes too much, putting pressure on other greenkeepers to follow suit.
Evans firmly believes that his approach is beneficial to both the grass plant and the industry in general. Some of the most respected heavyweights in the golfing world seem to agree. One is Peter McEvoy who wrote in the June edition of English Club Golfer that Ealing Golf Club has: “the best greens that I have ever putted on in the UK, bar none.” Another is Luke Goddard, the English Amateur Champion & Walker Cup Player whose commendation goes even further: “I’ve been lucky enough to play all around the world over the last few years and these greens are as good as I've putted anywhere.” It is plainly obvious to anyone who has played the Ealing course recently that the greens have been vastly improved since Evans took the helm three years ago.
Pitchcare has invited Greg Evans to address some of the questions raised by fellow greenkeepers whilst the debate raged and, in particular, how he has managed to keep greens sustainable when the height of cut is reduced. Pitchcare also suggest that readers pay a visit to Ealing Golf Club, just to appreciate the greens.
Wuther
reenkeepers have all heard the cries of “why are the greens so slow” or “try engaging the mower
blades next time you cut”! The reason for these complaints is that the general golfer wants to putt on fast, true greens in all environments. I have yet to hear a golfer walk off the 18th green with the remark “Wow, those slow greens were great!” Golfers really don’t care what type of grass species they putt on, just as long the ball travels in a fast, true fashion. A recent survey in America concluded that golfers think 10.5 feet on the
stimpmeter is just about perfect. The subject of sustainability has been an important topic covered by the greenkeeping press during recent years. As a result, many greenkeepers have reintroduced finer grasses, fescue and bent, back to the putting surfaces. However, the average golfer is often oblivious to the type of grass he putts on. It could be weeds, such as daisies, just as long as the greens are fast and true. The best grasses, fescue and bent, are fine on a links or heathland courses, blessed with sandy soils and no trees but, as soon as you move inland where the majority of courses in this country are clay based parkland, these grass combinations have become rarer. Meadow grass is the dominate species on the inland courses. But, do golfers really like
putting on meadow grass cut at 4 or 5mm? The answer is no, because of the ‘snaky’ slow ball roll that it produces.
The average golfer plays once or twice a week. He pays his subs (ranging from a few hundred pounds in the north to several thousand in the south). When he comes to the club, the last thing he wants to hear is that the course is undertaking a grass species change. Moving from meadowgrass to the finer grasses means that the height of cut will range from 4 to 5mm during the grow-in period, which is likely to take several years.
In the meantime, they will be
slow, bumpy greens at certain times of the year. The average stimpmeter reading will be around eight feet. If you play in the club championship the reading may go up to nine, but will then drop straight back down. No wonder there is pressure being put on the greenkeeper to lower the blades.
How do we produce fast putting surfaces on a normal parkland course?
‘Cut it shorter’ is the logical answer. It will certainly work in the short term, but can you make this sustainable over the longer term? I believe that you can. The main reason why a 2mm height of cut was previously thought impossible was because of the limitations of older machinery. Scaremongering stories of the
greens dying abound, but I have yet to see a green die purely
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