|
Determining the Need for Reconstruction
by James Francis Moore,
Director Construction Education Program Section
This is one of the most important questions that can be asked regarding
every golf course. Usually this question is followed by questions
such as:
- Do greens wear out over time?
- Why is it some greens last for over 50 years and other are
rebuilt within 10 years?
- How long will it take?
- How much will it cost? (Which is often followed with a repeat
of the first question - do they really need to be rebuilt?)
At first, these questions would seem to be relatively easy to answer.
But the person asking such questions will quickly find that they
will receive many different answers to the same question.- depending
largely on the perspective of the person being asked.
There are at least four distinct perspectives that come
into play.
The agronomic aspects of the existing and proposed greens involve
the greatest amount of science and technical considerations. The
following procedure is recommended to determine whether or not the
greens should be rebuilt.
- Arrange for a Turfgrass Advisory Service visit from the Green
Section agronomist in your area. The agronomic staff of the
Green Section can provide an unbiased assessment of the ability
of the greens to perform up to expectations. This assessment
will based on formal agronomic training and invaluable experienced
gained from visiting a wide variety of golf courses and green
construction techniques.
- Please do not assume the Green Section agronomist will recommend
the reconstruction of any green simply because that green is
not currently built to the USGA Guidelines for Green Construction.
(The USGA Green Section's Guideline for the Construction of
Greens can be found at USGA Guidelines.) The USGA agronomists
fully realize that there are many greens that perform extremely
well that are far from being Spec greens as they are often referred
to in the industry. In fact, the agronomist will make every
effort to determine whether or not the existing greens can be
improved through modifications to the maintenance programs.
- Improve the growing conditions of the existing greens as much
as possible. Often greens that are performing poorly can be
greatly improved with practices including a more aggressive
aerification program (including various types of aerification),
adjustments to the fertility and/or fungicide programs, the
provision of additional light and air movement to better support
turfgrass growth, the raising of cutting heights to create a
stronger plant, the acquisition of better quality water, or
even something as simple as increasing traffic control efforts
to distribute traffic over a larger portion of the green. The
Green Section agronomist can be very helpful not only in helping
the golf course superintendent identify such steps, but also
in documenting the need for such work in a written report to
the course leadership.
- Please note! Seldom do greens fail solely because they are
poorly built. More often, there are many stresses on a green
that cause it to fail. While reconstruction may well be justified,
unless the other conditions that contributed to the turf's failure
are not corrected as well, the new green is unlikely to perform
up to expectations. One good method of ensuring all aspects
of the current growing conditions of the greens have been considered
is to complete a Report
Card for each of the greens.
- Remove samples from the existing greens and submit them to
an accredited, physical soils laboratory (Accredited
Laboratories List) for analysis. Provide your Green Section
agronomist with the results of the testing. The golf course
superintendent and the agronomist can then evaluate the impact
of the root zone on the overall performance of the green and
determine if corrective maintenance practices are in order -
or if complete reconstruction is necessary.
Once you have completed the steps listed above, you will have a
very good idea of the agronomic strengths and weaknesses of your
greens. However, the most difficult part of the assessment process
remains. That is, to determine at what level of maintenance the
limitations in the greens will become apparent in terms of lost
or damaged turf.
For example, a golfing membership that expects near championship
putting quality on a daily basis (an unrealistic goal in most parts
of the country) will need greens that are much better constructed
and subject to very few other stresses. Predictably, the low cutting
heights necessary to produce very fast greens place a great deal
of additional stress on the greens. Such greens are invariably be
less able to tolerate heavy play, limited light, poor air movement,
or extremes in temperatures. Those golfers desiring the ultimate
in playing conditions will also need to provide the ultimate in
growing conditions for the turf. The reverse is true as well. On
those courses where the majority of the players can be kept happy
(assuming golfers can ever be kept happy) with moderately paced
greens and the greens "enjoy" otherwise good growing conditions,
limitations in the construction of the greens will be far less influential
on their overall performance.
Another example how the construction of greens impacts courses differently
can be found in areas of varying water quality. In many communities
the quality of the water can vary widely from one part of town to
another. While all greens should be irrigated with good quality
water, those that receive water high in salts, sodium, and bicarbonates
are under a great deal more stress. Such greens must have good internal
drainage to allow leaching of these components out of the upper
portion of the root zone and away from the plant.
Often golfers have a hard time understanding the interrelationships
between the various stress factors the greens must endure. There
is a tendency to look for one thing that needs correcting in an
effort to simplify the problem (the problem being poor turf performance).
The reality is that all greens are exposed to a wide variety of
stresses. Just a few examples include heavy play, low cutting heights,
poor air movement, limited light, tree root competition, inadequate
cupping area, limited entrance and exit points to and from the green,
compaction of the root zone, poor quality water, and bentgrass grown
too far south - and bermudagrass grown to far north. And of course
- poorly constructed greens. Again, prior to making the decision
to rebuild the greens, every superintendent and representatives
of the course leadership are urged to complete the Report
Card to get a better idea of the "big picture".
Most often, greens are targeted for reconstruction because of their
agronomic limitations. However, poor or inappropriate architecture
is every bit as good a reason to rebuild as a root zone that does
not drain.
Architecture has a tremendous impact on the overall performance
of a putting green. Consider a green design that includes severe
contouring of the putting surface. Although the green may measure
6000 square feet in surface area, from an agronomic standpoint the
area that is usable for hole locations is the more important measurement.
Even though the green may be large, if the contours are so severe
that they limit hole locations to just a few areas the concentrated
player traffic will wear the turf thin.
The design of the green obviously impacts it's ability to withstand
traffic. The architect that designs small, heavily contoured greens
for a course that receives heavy play does a disservice to all concerned.
However, this seldom happens. What does happen is that many times
the amount of play a course receives today is much greater than
what the course received during the first few years after construction.
This is exactly what has happened on many older courses. Golf has
never experienced the popularity it now enjoys. While this has been
good for the game and those who enjoy it, many older courses still
have greens that were designed for much less play. The same "push-up",
50 years old greens that might withstand 15,000 round per year,
may fail completely under 30,000 rounds.
Changes in the way golfers want the greens to be maintained have
also impacted the design of the greens and the ability of the turf
to withstand traffic. Greens that only 20 years ago were mowed at
3/16 of an inch and perhaps measured 6 feet on the stimpmeter (a
device used to measure the speed of greens) may today be mowed at
1/8th of an inch and measure 9 feet. The low cutting heights necessary
to produce fast greens greatly reduce the ability of the turf to
withstand traffic. The faster speeds likewise "amplify" the contouring
of the greens. Hole locations that were considered reasonable at
7 feet on the stimpmeter are often out of the question at 9 feet.
This effectively makes the usable area of the green much smaller.
Obviously, the combination of lower cutting heights, faster putting
surfaces, and more play will have a strong negative influence on
the green's architecture as well as it's agronomic performance.
As a result, the original architecture of a many courses is often
inappropriate to today's conditions.
When the greens on a beautiful old course cannot withstand the amount
of play they receive because they are just too small, a change in
architecture is necessary. Often this is an extremely difficult
decision for the golfers and leadership of the course. This is particularly
true for courses with architecture of historical significance to
the game of golf. No one wants to lose the artistic touch of Tillinghast,
McKenzie, Ross, McDonald, Maxwell, or many other great architects
that have done so much for the game. For this reason, perhaps the
greatest test of today's architects is to be able to preserve the
"flavor" and strategic value of a historical architectural style
while at the same time incorporating design characteristics that
will allow the green to better withstand today's pressures.
As discussed above, many of today's golfers expect greens for daily
play that far exceed the quality that was expected for major championships
just 20 years ago. Many golfers expect daily course conditions comparable
to what they see on television on the weekend. Unfortunately, very
few of these same golfers have any idea how much preparation goes
into peaking a course for a championship. With very few exceptions,
the course that is seen on television has undergone weeks and even
months of extra preparation for the event. The main point of this
discussion is that golfers should realize that rebuilding greens
to USGA guidelines does not mean those greens will be able to support
championship conditions on a daily basis.
There is another major factor regarding the needs of the golfer's
that must be considered whenever the need for greens reconstruction
is evaluated. Some golfer's greatly desire smooth, firm, and very
fast greens, and are willing to pay whatever it takes to obtain
such greens. However, many other golfers find greens that are softer
and slower more in keeping with their games. Predictably, these
different needs can lead to sometimes bitter disagreements within
a golfing membership. And often, the split is well defined by age.
Many seniors simply do not strike the ball as hard as their younger
counterparts. As a result, their shots are seldom as high nor does
the ball have as much backspin. Firm, fast greens are therefore
more difficult for most seniors and many women golfers.
More importantly (from a construction standpoint), while the greens
may need to be rebuilt in order to sustain the very low cutting
heights necessary for very fast putting surfaces, their construction
may be adequate for a less strenuous maintenance regime. In other
words, a green that fails miserably when mowed at 1/8 of an inch
for weeks at a time may perform quite well when maintained at 3/16
of an inch for the season. When faced with the cost of reconstruction
and the fact that the greens may be closed for as much as 10 months
for reconstruction and grow-in, many golfers will chose slower,
softer greens mowed at the higher height. Please note - not all
greens construction problems can be solved simply by raising cutting
heights of the mowers. There are many greens that are so poorly
built that regardless of the setting on the mower the greens will
frequently fail.
When the conflict arises between those golfers that want new greens
and those that find the existing greens satisfactory, the leadership
and/or ownership of the course is caught in the middle. Which group
should be appeased? Much depends on the need to attract new golfers
and/or members. Courses located near other good courses must remain
competitive. They cannot afford to offer playing conditions (or
club facilities of any type) that are significantly inferior to
their competition. The leadership must also consider the need to
constantly attract new players. Attrition is an undeniable and inevitable
occurrence at almost every course or club.
In at least one respect, it is a shame greens are not depreciated
over time. A very general rule for the life expectancy of greens
is that the construction should last at least 20 years. Over that
20 year period there are likely to be major changes in the golfer's
expectations for how the greens should be maintained. There could
very well be major changes in the amount of play the courses receives.
After 20 years the greens will probably not drain well internally.
Without question there will continue to be major changes in the
legal and environmental aspects of golf course maintenance. And,
like almost everything else, there will be major improvements in
grasses over any 20 year period. All of these factors will favor
the periodic reconstruction of the greens. It is the responsibility
of the course leadership to prepare for such work well ahead of
time. Good preparation often makes the difference between a project
that is accepted by the golfers and one that is not. Equally important,
good preparation almost always makes the difference between a project
that is successful and one that fails.
As you can see, there is much more to determining whether or not
the greens need to be rebuilt than simply sending a soil sample
to the laboratory. Again, one of the best steps you can take early
on in this entire evaluation process is to involve your local Green
Section agronomist.
|
|
|
|
