|
|
|
© 2007 Plant Management Network. Ball Mark Repair: Is It The Tool, Or How You Gregg C. Munshaw, Barry R. Stewart, H. Wayne Philley, and D. Wayne Wells, 117 Dorman Hall, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State 39762 Corresponding author: Gregg C. Munshaw. gmunshaw@pss.msstate.edu Munshaw, G. C., Stewart, B. R., Philley, H. W., and Wells, D. W. 2007. Ball mark repair: Is it the tool, or how you use it?. Online. Applied Turfgrass Science doi:10.1094/ATS-2007-0816-01-RS. Abstract A study was designed to test the efficacy of repair tools and methods. The study was conducted in summer 2005 on two 'MS-Supreme' bermudagrass (Cynodon × magenissii Hurc.) greens. A pneumatic ball-firing device provided uniform marks on the turf. Nine commercial ball mark repair tools, each with a specific repair method, a golf tee, and an unrepaired control were tested. Multiple human repairers were used to evaluate tool/method consistency. Significant differences in repairers occurred; however, there was not a significant repairer × tool interaction for any tested parameter. Visual turfgrass assessment immediately after repair showed that tools requiring that turf be pushed towards the center of the ball mark, or tools with methods that gently twist the surrounding turf into the ball mark, tended to result in the highest quality of repair. Tools with methods that lifted soil from the center of the mark resulted in the lowest quality after repair. This trend continued until recovery, approximately 3 to 4 weeks after initial damage. Ball mark diameter 1 to 3 weeks after repair continued to show that tools designed to push healthy turf forward had a smaller damaged area than tools designed to lift soil. Introduction Although the average number of golf rounds in the United States has remained the same for the past few years, the lack of golf etiquette continues to be a problem. In a recent survey conducted by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America (GCSAA), 64% of golf course superintendents surveyed identified failure to repair ball marks as the most common violation of golf etiquette (5). The United States Golf Association provides guidelines stating that players should repair any damage to the putting green made by the impact of a ball. Although golf courses implement policies to encourage ball mark repair, they are often neglected and can leave a heavily used green severely pockmarked. According to the National Golf Foundation, the average number of golf rounds per course played in the United States in 2005 was 31,062 (8). Assuming that the average golfer hits 12 greens per round, the potential number of ball marks created on a single golf course each year equates to a staggering 372,744, indicating the potential severity of this problem. Golf etiquette aside, ball marks on putting greens reduce turf uniformity and can adversely affect ball roll. Ball marks are generally created when a golfer hits a high arched shot with a short iron. When a ball strikes a green, soil can be displaced and the force applied to the turf often results in bruised leaves and crowns that often go unnoticed until the next day. Not only are these bruised areas visually unappealing, Beard (1) states that bruised leaves have an increased potential for disease infection. Wear injuries to turfgrass leaves often include crushing and tearing of plant tissue that result in water and solute losses and an increased susceptibility to environmental stresses (3). Although bermudagrasses (Cynodon spp.) have been shown to be quite traffic tolerant, the force of a 46 g golf ball traveling at speeds of 27 to 31 m/sec (7) has the potential to damage even the toughest of bermudagrass cultivars. Very little information is available in the literature concerning ball marks or ball mark repair tools. Fry et al. (4) examined ball mark repair techniques on creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.) putting greens and found significant reductions in repair time when tools were used properly. The authors state that tool selection does not seem to matter when using traditional style tools if a proper method is used. Other studies have examined recovery time of unrepaired ball marks on creeping bentgrass turf. Watschke et al. (10) reported ball mark damage was 54 to 78% repaired after 43 days. Murphy et al. (9) recorded damage up to 74 days after creating ball marks. There has been no published research examining ball mark damage or ball mark repair tools on ultradwarf bermudagrass putting greens. In recent years, many new tools have become available. Many of these tools look nothing like the two-pronged tools of which most golfers are familiar. Most newly designed repair tools also come with a very specific method as to how to properly utilize the tool. This study was designed to examine a variety of repair tools, methods, and repairers on quality of repair and healing time of an ultradwarf bermudagrass putting green after ball mark damage. This information will allow golf course superintendents to advocate tools/methods that will result in the quickest healing time of their putting greens. Evaluating Ball Marks on Bermudagrass Site descriptions. Two on-site experiments were conducted during the summer of 2005 in Starkville, MS. The first experiment was performed at Highlands Plantation Golf Course (HP) and was initiated 3 June. The second experiment was performed at the Mississippi State University Golf Course (MSU) and initiated 2 Aug. Both sites were growing mature ‘MS-Supreme’ ultradwarf bermudagrass (Cynodon × magenissii Hurc.) on USGA specification soil mixes (80% sand, 20% peat). Highlands Plantation’s greens were being maintained at a 3.6 mm mowing height and received N at 43 kg/ha/mo. Mississippi State’s greens were mowed at 3.2 mm and received N at 24 kg/ha/mo. Greens were mowed daily at both courses with triplex mowers. Irrigation was provided 3 times per week with 0.5 cm per event at HP and 4 times per week with 0.6 cm per event at MSU. Thatch was visually determined as minimal at both sites. Ensuring uniform ball marks. By firing golf balls with a custom-made pneumatic ball gun adjusted to 15 psi, at a consistent angle and height, uniform ball marks were created (Fig. 1). The ball gun was based on a design by Murphy et al. (9) of Rutgers University. The ball gun used a rapidly opening butterfly valve to shoot a golf ball at a green from close range. It was found that 15 psi was sufficient to make ball marks similar in size to the larger ball marks observed on putting greens. The marks were placed along an outstretched measuring tape on 30 cm centers to allow precise monitoring.
Experimental design. Six people made repairs with a total of 198 ball marks in each experiment. Each person in each experiment (golf course) repaired 3 sets (replications) of 11 ball marks, employing each tool once, with one unrepaired mark in each set. A mixed model analysis of variance was used to analyze turfgrass quality, ball mark diameter, and ball roll data on individual dates. Tool was considered a fixed effect and person, experiment, and replication were considered random effects. The mixed procedure of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used to test effects of tools or methods within individual dates. Means were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD at P ≤ 0.05. Response variables. Ball marks were visually rated for surface disruption immediately after repair and before any wilting occurred using a 1 to 9 scale. A rating of 9 indicated no surface disruption (complete repair), while 1 indicated severe disruption (unrepaired). This rating includes removal of the ball mark depression, surface smoothness, and return of turf to its initial conditions. A modified stimpmeter (1/2 normal release angle; 1/3 length) was used to test the effect of each repair on ball roll distance. The end of the stimpmeter was placed 30 cm from the ball mark and the ball was rolled directly over the mark. Visual injury ratings were conducted, beginning one week after repair and at weekly intervals until marks were healed. A rating of 9 indicated no injury, while 1 indicated severe injury. Diameter of marks was measured at weekly intervals using a ruler. The length and width of each ball mark were averaged and recorded until they were no longer visible. Ball mark repair methods and tools. Tools were chosen to cover both newer and older designs as well as a number of repair methods. A golf tee repair treatment and an unrepaired control were included among the tools (Fig. 2). Each tool manufacturer was contacted for specific instructions as to how the tool should be used for repair (Table 1). The repair methods included push, lift, GCSAA’s knit and twist, combined, and unrepaired. In the push method, the tool was inserted around the ball mark at a 45° angle and the surrounding turf and soil were moved in towards the center of the depression (Figs. 3 and 4). In the lift method the tool was inserted at a 45° angle around the ball mark and the soil beneath the depression was lifted to recreate a smooth putting surface (Fig. 5). GCSAA’s method (6) is described as inserting the tool at a 90° angle to the depression and twisting the tool around the ball mark to bring the turf and soil towards the center of the ball mark (Fig. 6). The combined method was only used with the golf tee and included the lift, push, or a combination of the two methods (Fig. 7). The unrepaired ball marks were considered controls. All ball marks with the exception of unrepaired were lightly tamped with a putter after repair to smooth the putting surface. Table 1. Ball mark repair tools and methods.
Efficacy of Repair Tool on Putting Green Aesthetics and Recovery Turfgrass quality. Because location (golf course) was considered a random effect, data from both sites were pooled. The variable repair person was a significant source of variation, thus the inclusion of repair person was justified in our statistical model. Immediately following ball mark repair, visual turfgrass quality ratings were taken. All tools were able to remove the depression created by the golf ball. Ball roll distance using the modified stimpmeter showed no differences in ball roll distances between tools (48.6 to 51.0 cm), while all were better than the unrepaired ball marks (42.3 cm). However, some tools were better than others when it came to completely removing any signs of the ball injury and resulted in a better initial quality rating. Within 2 to 3 h after ball mark injury, all treatments began to show leaf bruising. By 1 day after repair (DAR), the bruising had escalated into a necrotic spot generally the size of a US quarter. Many golfers may be unaware that regardless of tool or method used to repair a ball mark, the force of the ball hitting the turf results in an unsightly blemish shortly after the golfer exits the green. Carrow and Petrovic (2) state that if a ball mark is not repaired, the displaced turf and soil will be removed the next morning by the greens mower resulting in a dead area. In the present study, it was found that a small dead/necrotic area formed by the next day, regardless if the ball mark was repaired or unrepaired. Ratings were repeated at one-week intervals until ball marks were not visible. Turfgrass quality trends were similar from the initial repair until 3 weeks after repair (WAR) (Fig. 8). Generally, Divotool, Green-Save, Green Fix putter, Green Fix Wizard, Divvy Up, and Shear Line tools resulted in higher turfgrass quality ratings than the tools Divvy, The Wave, acrylic, golf tee, and unrepaired. By 3 WAR only slight differences were evident between treatments and there was no visible damage by 4 WAR, thus ball marks were considered completely healed. Murphy et al. (9) reported a period of 41 days on a mature creeping bentgrass green before unrepaired ball marks were considered healed. Differences in time to recovery are very likely due to the higher recuperative potential of bermudagrass over creeping bentgrass (1). All repaired marks showed a reduction in quality 1 WAR. The initial repair generally removed the depression created but as was stated above, necrosis did not set in until a few hours after repair. Thus, turfgrass quality ratings 1 WAR showed a reduction in quality because of the necrotic tissue not initially present. The greens began to recover by 2 WAR and by 3 WAR there were only slight differences between treatments.
Tools were tested using their manufacturer’s specific method of repair only. If an individual tool was used with a different method of repair, results would likely differ. Because some of the tools tested can be used in a variety of ways, methods of individual tools were analyzed to determine if there was a single method that consistently performed better than all others. Contrasts were used to determine if there were differences between methods. Visual turfgrass quality ratings at both golf courses showed similar trends over the four ratings (Table 2). The push and GCSAA methods consistently performed better than the lift and unrepaired methods. Somewhat surprisingly, the golf tee, using the combined method to smooth the putting green surface, resulted in quality ratings similar to the push and GCSAA methods. Table 2. Contrasts of repair methods on ball mark diameter and quality of ball mark repair.
x Method listed first in each contrast is more effective than second method for all variables where significant. y Significant at 0.05 (*), 0.01 (**), and 0.001 (***) levels. Ball mark size and recovery. Ball mark diameter was measured beginning 1 WAR and continued until ball marks were no longer visible. The general trend showed Divotool, Green Fix Wizard, Green-Save, Divvy Up, Green Fix Putter, and Shear Line having smaller diameters than Divvy, The Wave, and unrepaired (Fig. 9). This trend continued through the duration of the study. At 3 WAR, many of the ball mark diameters were zero or very close to it. Again, by 4 WAR, no damage was visible, thus no data was taken. A study conducted on creeping bentgrass reported that repaired ball marks recovered between 16 and 38 days depending on treatment (4). In the present study, many ball marks had healed by 21 days and all had completely healed by 28 days, regardless of treatment. The shorter healing time in the present study was again likely due to the faster growth rate of bermudagrass over creeping bentgrass.
Repair method again showed that push and GCSAA resulted in the smallest diameter ball marks throughout the evaluation period (Table 2). Using the combined method of repair resulted in medium diameter ball marks while using the lift method often resulted in ball marks as large as or larger than the unrepaired marks. Fry et al. (4) report that using a lift method resulted in ball mark diameters larger than unrepaired marks in creeping bentgrass. The authors suggest that this lifting action during repair may be tearing roots away from turfgrass plants, thus exacerbating the ball impact stress. Conclusions Repairing ball marks will lead to smaller necrotic spots, smoother ball roll, and higher turfgrass quality, if repaired correctly. Repair did not result in a significantly faster healing time. No single tool stood out as being far superior to any other, but the method used to repair the ball marks is quite important. According to the results, the correct way to repair a ball mark on ultradwarf bermudagrass greens is by using the push or GCSAA methods. One issue that golf course superintendents will face is that many tools can be used in a variety of ways — some leading to better looking turf, some not. Educating golfers on the correct use of tool sold/provided at a golf course could result in a noticeable increase in green quality. However, it may be difficult enough to get golfers to follow proper etiquette in the first place let alone making them follow specific repair tool instructions. Thus, tools where only one method is possible may be the best solution if the education of certain methods is not possible. Acknowledgments The authors wish to thank Mr. Will Atkins-Arnett, CGCS, and staff at Highlands Plantation Golf Course, and Mr. Pat Sneed, CGCS, and staff at the Mississippi State University Golf Course for allowing us to abuse their greens. Appreciation is extended to Jeremy Stevens and Bobby Joe Green for their assistance during the ball mark creation process. And finally we wish to acknowledge Green-Save Golf for partial funding of this experiment. Literature Cited 1. Beard, J. B. 1973. Turfgrass: Science and Culture. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 2. Carrow, R. N., and Petrovic, A. M. 1992. Effects of traffic on turfgrass. Pages 285-330 in: Turfgrass. D. V. Waddington, R. N. Carrow, and R. C. Shearman, eds. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI. 3. Cockerham, S. T. 2002. Traffic school: examining turf grass stress. Calif. Fairways 11:10-13. 5. Goering, B. 2005. Leadership survey hits its mark. Golf Course Manage. 73:42-44. 7. Kane, R. 2005. Cruisin’ for a bruisin’. Turfgrass Trends, January 2005. Questex Media Group Inc., Newton, MA. 8. Kass, J. 2005. Golf industry report: 4th quarter 2005. Online. Natl. Golf Fdn., Jupiter, FL. 9. Murphy, J. A., Lawson, T. J., and Clark, J. 2003. Ball marks and bentgrass: Blame the golfer, not the cultivar. USGA Green Section Record July/Aug. 2003. 10. Watschke, T. L., Borger, J. A., and Brosnan, J. T. 2001. Evaluations of ball mark recovery on a putting green. Pages 94-96 in: 2001 Annual Research Report. Penn State Univ., University Park, PA. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
