A Publication on
Turfgrass Management by the 
United States Golf Association®

September/October 1983

USGA

Green Section

i Ca_mr£ A.'#
<k Ziikjr — 

o jjMflDtr

USGA

Vol. 21, No. 5
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983

EDITOR:
William H. Bengeyfield
MANAGING EDITOR:
Robert Sommers
ART EDITOR:
Miss Janet Seagle

GREEN SECTION COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: 
George M. Bard
5200 Newport Drive, 
Rolling Meadows, Ill. 60006

NATIONAL DIRECTOR:
William H. Bengeyfield
19461 Sierra Luna Drive, 
Irvine, Calif. 92715
(714) 996-3372

GREEN SECTION AGRONOMISTS AND OFFICES:

Northeastern Region:
United States Golf Association, Golf House, 
Far Hills, N.J. 07931 • (201) 766-7770
James T. Snow, Director

Ramshorn Road
Dudley, Ma. 01570 • (617) 943-6749
Karl Ed Olson, Agronomist

Mid-Atlantic Region:
9017 Forest Hill Avenue, 
Richmond, Va. 23235 • (804) 272-5553 
William G. Buchanan, Director 
Patrick M. O’Brien, Agronomist

Southeastern Region:
P.O. Box 4213, Campus Station, 
Athens, Ga. 30602 • (404) 548-2741 
Charles B. White, Director

5579 Adair Way, 
Lake Worth, Fla. 33463 • (305) 968-8146 
Steve M. Batten, Agronomist

North-Central Region:
P.O. Box 592, Crystal Lake, Ill. 60014 • (815) 459-3731 
Stanley J. Zontek, Director

Mid-Continent Region:
17360 Coit Road, Dallas, Tx. 75252 • (214) 783-7125 
Dr. Douglas T. Hawes, Director

Western Region:
200 N. Bradford, Suite L, 
Placentia, Calif. 92670 • (714) 996-3372 
Donald D. Hoos, Director

Green Section
RECORD

Golf Shoe Study II
by Dr. Victor A. Gibeault, 
Dr. Victor B. Younger and 
William H. Bengeyfield

Nursery Rhymes
by Charles B. White

The Golf Course Superintendent and 
Maintaining the Integrity of the Course 
by John Fleming

Cover Turf Twisters

Cover Photo:
Paul McGuire (PGA) and 
Julie Lynd (LPGA) 
rate the putting quality 
of the plots.

©1983 by United States Golf Association®. Permission to reproduce 
articles or material in the USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD 
is granted to publishers of newspapers and periodicals (unless 
specifically noted otherwise), provided credit is given the USGA 
and copyright protection is afforded. To reprint material in other 
media, written permission must be obtained from the USGA.
In any case, neither articles nor other material may be copied or 
used for any advertising, promotion or commercial purposes.

GREEN SECTION RECORD (ISSN 0041-5502) is published six times a 
year in January, March, May, July, September and November by the 
UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION®, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 
07931. Subscriptions and address changes should be sent to the above 
address. Articles, photographs, and correspondence relevant to published 
material should be addressed to: United States Golf Association Green 
Section, Golf House, Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Second class postage paid at 
Far Hills, N.J., and other locations. Office of Publication, Golf House, 
Far Hills, N.J. 07931. Subscriptions $6 a year.

(Left to right) Shoe No. 1, Shoe No. 2, Shoe No. 3, Shoe No. 4.

Golf Shoe Study II

by DR. VICTOR A. GIBEAULT, Extension Horticulturist, and
DR. VICTOR B. YOUNGER, Agronomist, University of California, Riverside;
WILLIAM H. BENGEYFIELD, National Director, USGA Green Section

THE SWILCAN Bridge, at the 

18th hole of the Old Course, at 
St. Andrews, Scotland, is over 
800 years old. For centuries it has 
withstood the trodding of townspeople 
and traders alike, from harbor to town, 
and it has endured the crossings of 
St. Andrews golfers since well before 
Columbus sailed for America. If your 
mind follows a logical bent, the bridge 
must be one of golf’s greatest contra­
dictions, mysteries and miracles! How 
has this graceful granite arch held its 
ground against the onslaught of man, 
shoe, and club all these years?

One of the reasons for its endurance, 
at least for the first 750 years, may be 
that the bridge never had to contend 
with the conventional spiked golf shoe! 
Allan Robertson, the world’s first golf 
professional (1815 - 1859), or even Old 
Tom Morris did not tread Swilcan in 
them. In fact, the earliest evidence so 
far of golf shoes with protrusions from 
the sole comes from an 1893 photograph 
of players in New Zealand’s First 
Interprovincial Contest between Otago 

Golf Club, Dunedin, and a Christchurch 
team. Two of the golfers are shown 
wearing shoes with hobnails — short 
nails with large, rounded heads.

In this country, at the turn of the 
century, red rubber sole shoes were 
in vogue. In his book, The Walter Hagen 
Story, Hagen describes how he dressed 
for the 1913 U.S. Open, including his 
wearing “red rubber-sole shoes” at The 
Country Club, in Brookline, Mass. The 
following year he wore the same general 
getup except for the shoes. “I slid all 
over the course at Brookline in wet 
weather (in 1913),” he said, and so he 
bought a pair of hobnail shoes for the 
1914 Open. He won!

We know the Englishman Harold H. 
Hilton won the U.S. Amateur Champion­
ship, in 1911, in sneakers, and that 
Jerome D. Travers also appears to have 
worn sneakers in his 1907 victory. 
But there is no doubt the hobnail shoe 
was coming into its own. Bob Jones 
wore them at Merion in the 1916 Amateur, 
and Jess W. Sweetser (1922 Amateur 
Champion) remembers “golf shoes with 

spikes” as standard foot gear by 1919. 
The trend was established and the boding 
not good for the growers of grass.

In the modern era, the spiked golf 
shoe has long been of interest to the 
USGA Green Section. The first scientific 
studies were undertaken in 1958-59 by 
Dr. M. H. Ferguson to determine the 
effect on wear and putting qualities of 
putting green turf by different shoes. 
The conventional metal spike shoe, the 
“ripple sole” shoe, and a modified golf 
shoe spike (with recessed or flattened 
spike shoulder), were tested.*

The conventional golf shoe spike not 
only caused severe damage to the grass 
plant, but the rounded shoulder of the 
spike also caused significant soil com­
paction and delayed grass recovery for 
weeks beyond that of other shoes. The 
ripple sole shoe soon dropped from the 
golfers’ favor (and was banned by some 
clubs) because of the distortion it caused

*See USGA Green Section Record: 
November, 1958 & September, 1959 issues.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983

1

to the putting surface. The modified 
golf shoe spike, with the shoulder either 
flat with the sole or else recessed within 
the sole, proved to be less damaging to 
soils and turf, and it is still manufactured 
today for golfers who prefer spiked 
shoes but who are concerned with 
preserving putting green quality.

Course superintendents and green 
committee chairmen were also concerned. 
Charles Cogan, Green Committee 
Chairman at Irvine Coast Country 
Club, California, undertook his own 
study of spiked shoe damage to greens 
in 1960:

“The average golf shoe has 12 spikes; i.e., 
24 spikes per golfer. I have found golfers 
take an average of 26 full steps (52 paces) 
per green. Therefore, each golfer leaves 
(26 x 24) 624 spike marks on each green. 
On 18 greens, he leaves 11,232 spike marks. 
If there are 200 rounds of golf played a day, 
there are 2,246,400 spike marks left behind. 
If this goes on for 30 days, you have 67,392,000 
spike marks per month. And now, you 
wonder why you can’t sink a putt?”

Both the player and the grass grower 
have a right to be concerned over golf 
shoes and what they are doing to the 
playing quality of our turf. But there 
is another, less visible factor that also 
deserves attention. There is increasing 
concern over the added costs in labor, 
aerifying, topdressing, mowing, weed 
control, cup changes, etc., brought 
about by spiked shoes. William H. 
Bengeyfield, one of the authors of this 
article, believes that $10 million is a 
conservative estimate, and he attributes 
that to course conditioning alone. What 
of the additional costs in replacing pro 
shop and locker room carpeting, asphalt 
and concrete paths, door sills, wooden 
steps, benches, electric cart flooring, 
dashboards, tee markers, etc.? Does 
the spiked shoe cost golf $15 million 
or $20 million a year? Whatever it is, 
there is no doubt of its destructiveness.
But who among us is crusader enough, 
with courage to ask and optimism enough 
to expect today’s golfer to readily give 
up wearing shoes with spikes?

The golfer has been conditioned. 
He believes that he needs the spiked 
shoe and, no doubt, some golfers 
probably do. The power behind the 
big drive in golf (250 or more yards), 
it is said, comes from the legs. Powerful 
legs need a secure grip. But not everyone 
who plays this game for the fun of it 
drives 250 or more yards! Not every 
golfer has that kind of leg power.

O'Sullivan's
Golf 
K^nobj.

Any shoe will make a Golf Shoe 

by attaching O’Sullivan’s Golf 

Knobs of New Rubber.

Practical, durable, satisfactory, 

economical — just what golf players 

have been looking for.

They are easily and quickly at­

tached by any one.

A sample set sent (enough for one 
pair of shoes, soles and heels) post­

paid to any address for 75 cents.

O*S‘ulli'dan 'Rubber Co.

LOWELL, MASS.

Makers of O’Sullivan Rubber Heels.

A 1901 advertisement for "Golf Knobs” to 
be attached to any shoe for turn-of-the- 
century golfers.

2 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Furthermore, not every round of golf 
is played under wet, slippery conditions. 
Fortunately, there are increasing 
numbers of golfers today, including 
many club professionals, who enjoy 
the game and play it very well in shoes 
without spike or stud. Indeed, most 
golfers could easily play and enjoy 
the game, especially on dry days, in

Photograph by Max Clover, U.C. Extension Service The Green Section Golf Shoe Study II participants (left to right) W. Bengeyfield, R. Loyland, 
Dr. V. Younger, M. Huck, R. O’Tee, Kevin O’Keefe, Dr. V. Gibeault at Industry Hills, California.

spikeless shoes. Hooray for them, for 
they shall lead the way to better putting 
turf at a lower cost.

The New Shoes

In 1982, a dramatic change in the 
design of golf shoes took place. New, 
multi-stud sole shoes were introduced 
into the United States. The studs are 

Figure 2. Ratings followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Duncan’s Multiple 
Range Test.

made of either rubber or a composition 
material. Advertising claims of “better 
traction” and “no damage to greens” 
were widely circulated. In one case, 
it was proclaimed that the new shoes 
were “USGA approved,” a statement 
with no basis in fact.

As more and more of the new shoes 
were produced, reports from golf 
course superintendents indicated that, 
contrary to the advertising claims, 
they were significantly damaging greens 
and adversely affecting putting surfaces, 
especially wet ones! Claims and counter­
claims multiplied. The time was right 
for Green Section Golf Shoe Study II.

Early in 1983, an experimental plan 
was developed at the University of 
California, Riverside, to evaluate the 
effect of four different types of golf 
shoes on turfgrass quality and injury 
to putting green turf. The experiment 
and lessons from earlier shoe studies 
were incorporated in this plan. The new 
study began in May, 1983.

At Industry Hills, Calif., General 
Manager Bill Bryant offered the use 
of one of the Penncross bentgrass nursery 
greens for the experiment. The turf was 
nearly a year old and had developed 
approximately a 1 / 2-inch depth of thatch.

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983 

3

It was mowed daily at 3/16 of an inch. 
The nursery green itself was built three 
years earlier to USGA Green Section 
Specifications. It received no other 
traffic than that imposed by the 
experiment, plus normal maintenance 
procedures. Four types of shoes were 
used in the study:
Shoe No. 1) The conventional metal 

spike golf shoe.

Shoe No. 2) One of the popular, new 
multi-stud sole golf 
shoes.

Shoe No. 3) A new “spikeless” golf 
shoe with very small 
suction-type cleats.

Shoe No. 4) Another one of the new 
multi-stud sole shoes 
but with a different sole 
design from No. 2.

The overall experiment was designed 

for Three Phases:

Phase I was to evaluate the shoes 
under normal weather conditions. This 
phase would require six weeks of testing.
Phase II would immediately follow 
Phase I and be a subjective test of the 
putting qualities of each plot. Two golf 
professionals and one amateur golfer 
would, in a prescribed manner, individ­
ually putt and rate the plots.

Phase III was to evaluate, under 
extremely wet conditions, the four 
shoes, as to wear injury effect over a 
period of three weeks.

PHASE I
After a brief preliminary investigation, 
the study commenced on May 2 and 
continued through June 13, 1983. Each 
plot measured 4 feet by 14 feet and was 
separated from adjacent plots by a 2-foot 
path. There were five randomized plots 
(one for each shoe type plus one check 
plot) in each replication, and four 
replications used in this experiment.

Four men, wearing a different type 
of golf shoe each day (in a predetermined 
order), walked and putted the plots 
designated for that particular shoe. 
They followed a prescribed walking 
and putting traffic pattern as shown 
in Figure 1. Each completed pattern 
was considered to be one treatment 
and each plot received four treatments 
daily. The men, wearing a different 
shoe type each day (in the predetermined 
order), carried out the treatments for 
four days, took the fifth day off, and 
so continued throughout the six-week 
span. Ratings were taken every two 
weeks using a scale of 1, equaling no 
visible damage, to 10, equaling bare 
ground.

4 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

TABLE 1.
Putting Surface Quality 
as Affected by Shoe Type 
(Normal Weather Conditions)

SHOE

1
2
3
4
CHECK PLOT

AVERAGE 
PUTTING 
RATING

6.8 a*
3.9 b
3.6 b
4.4 b
3.9 b

* Rating of 1 being excellent and 10 being extremely 
poor. Ratings followed by the same letter are not 
significantly different, Duncan’s Multiple Range 
Test.

The Walkway Ratings

Turf damage to the walkway areas was 
rated on May 26 and June 13 and is 
shown in Figure 2. Since there was no 
visible damage to the walkways on May 
10, no ratings were made.

On May 26, 24 days after beginning 
the experiment, Shoe No. 1 (spiked) 
showed the most damage to the walkway 
area. Shoes No. 2 and 4 (studded) 
showed slight damage. Shoe No. 3 
(suction cleats) and the check plot had 
no visible damage.

On June 13, the turf damage on 
walkways was more severe. Again, 
damage from Shoe No. 1 was clearly 
more severe than the other shoes, 
followed by No. 2. No. 3 and No. 4 shoes 
were about alike in damage. All shoes 
showed statistically greater damage 
than the untreated check plot.

The Putting Area Ratings
Turf damage ratings to the putting 
areas on May 10, 26, and June 13 are 
shown in Figure 3.

Apparent damage to the putting plots 
increased throughout the duration of 
the study. Shoes No. l,No. 2, and No. 4, 
in that order, caused the most damage. 
Shoe No. 3 caused some wear, but 
considerably less than the other shoes. 
On the final day of these ratings, all 
shoe plots showed significantly more 
damage than the check plot.

An example of damage caused by 
Shoe No. 1 on June 13, is shown in 
Figure 4. The Penncross creeping 
bentgrass had poorer color, decreased 
density, and a scruffy, ragged appearance, 
showing mechanical damage. These plots 
also had a noticeable surface depression 
and overall unevenness.

PHASE II
Immediately at the conclusion of Phase 
I, the subjective determination of the 
putting qualities of each plot was made. 
Paul McGuire (PGA), Julie Lynd

Figure 3. Ratings followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Duncan’s Multiple 
Range Test.

more damage than Shoe No. 4, and Shoe 
No. 4 caused more damage than Shoe 
No. 3.

Discussion and Conclusion

From an overall view, the results 
obtained on turf damage and putting 
quality confirmed those of the Golf 
Shoe Study 25 years ago!

SHOE No. 1 (spiked shoe)

Under all conditions, this was the most 
damaging shoe tested. It also caused the 
longest lasting damage. In fact, four 
weeks after concluding the Phase I 
experiment, turfgrass damage was still 
apparent on all Shoe No. 1 plots {Figure 
7). The length, shape and metallic nature 
of the spike, as well as the limited 
number of metal spikes on each shoe, 
are factors that account for most of the 
observation of this study. The effect of 
compaction, caused in large part by 
the weight-bearing shoulder of the metal 
spike, as well as the limited number of 
bearing surfaces (i.e., 11 or 12 spikes 
per shoe) was pointed out in the 1958-59 
studies. The contention that the metal 
spike helps aerate the upper soil surface 
is without factual basis.

SHOES No. 2 and No. 4 (studded shoes)

Shoes No. 2 and No. 4 were the second 
and third most damaging shoes in this 
study. The slightly less grass damage 
caused by these shoes seems attributable 
to their greater total surface contact 
area (i.e., more, wider studs or nubbins) 
on the shoe soles. The studs are shorter 
than metal spikes, more blunt and tend 
not to pierce the plant tissue.

Conversely, however, these shoes, 
under wet and certain other conditions, 
have a marked tendency to ruffle or 
disrupt otherwise smooth putting 
surfaces and cause a waffle-like imprint. 
Because the studs are blunt, with 
approximately 108 of them per shoe, 
they each cause a larger area of depression 
than the metal spike (with 11 or 12 per 
shoe), which slices through the surface 
and into the ground. How long the 
multi-stud imprint remains on the 
grass depends on many factors, including 
the type of grass, how wet the surface, 
general drainage characteristics of the 
green, thatch density and depth, height 
of cut, rooting depth, and soil types 
heavier than those encountered in 
this experiment.

SHOE No. 3 (suction cleats)

Shoe No. 3 was the least damaging of 
all to the turf and putting surface. Again,

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983 

5

Figure 4. Conventional spike shoe wear to putting area.

Every day, just before walking began, 
the test area was heavily and thoroughly 
hand watered. The surface area was 
saturated until water was standing on 
it. It was allowed to drain, and the 
plot was again irrigated to saturation 
and standing water. Immediately 
following the second drainage, walking 
began. At the end of three weeks, the 
plots were rated on the same scale as 
before, 1 equaling no damage and 10 
equaling bare ground.

The results are shown in Figure 6. 
They are similar to those in Phase I 
except the damage is greatly accentuated. 
The ratings show that damage from 
Shoe No. 1 is greater than the damage 
from Shoe No. 2, and Shoe No. 2 caused

(LPGA), and Ross O’Fee (amateur 
golfer) cooperated in this experiment. 
They followed the putting pattern shown 
in Figure 5. Ratings were made from 
1 (excellent putting qualities) to 10 
(totally unsatisfactory putting qualities).
Putting ratings were made on the 
walkways as well as the putting areas 
of each plot. The only noticeable shoe 
influence, however, was observed on 
the concentrated putting areas, and 
these results are presented in Table 1.

These results show that, when putting 
across plots where Shoe No. 1 was worn, 
a decidedly poorer quality putting rating 
was given by the golfer. On the plots of 
the other shoes, there was no noted 
statistical difference between them 
under the conditions of this experiment, 
i.e., normal weather.

PHASE III
This study was to evaluate the effects 
of the four shoes on putting green turf 
under very wet conditions. Earlier 
reports indicated that the multi-stud 
shoes caused considerable damage to 
wet putting surfaces. In some cases 
they have actually been banned from 
golf courses in this country.

In Phase III, the individual plots 
measured 2 feet by 10 feet, and consisted 
of straight walkways over which 25 
round trips were completed each day 
for three weeks. There were no putting 
areas in this test. All plots were replicated 
four times, and, again, the four men 
changed to a different type of shoe 
(in a predetermined order) each day 
and walked only those plots designated 
for that particular shoe.

Hand watering the “wet plots”before walking.

this seems attributable to the very high 
surface contact area, no great protruding 
spikes or studs and a non-metallic sole 
composition. The sole is comprised of 
approximately 750 small rubber cleats.

Some Concluding Thoughts

The standard golf shoe spike, or any 
shoe with nobs, studs or protrusions of 
any kind, unquestionably causes greater 
damage to the grass and adversely 
affects putting qualities more than flat 
type shoes. Golf is one of the few games, 
perhaps the only one, where the player’s 
own equipment — spiked shoes — 
directly, undeniably, and significantly 
affects the most critical playing surface 
of the game — the putting green. Even 
baseball and hockey smooth over their 
playing surfaces halfway through the 
contest! Golfers can’t do that, and day 
after day, step after step, the spiked 
golf shoe takes its toll.

Is there a compromise? Is there some 
way out of this dilemma? In this tech­
nical age, a new idea for golf shoes may 
be lurking somewhere. Surely it is

Figure 6. Wet Plots Ratingsfollowed by the same letter are not significantly different, Duncan’s 
Multiple Range Test.

SHOE NUMBER

6 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

(Left) Figure 7. Damage from metal spikes 
was still evident four weeks after discontinuing 
the experiment.

(Below) General view of experimental shoe 
trial area.

possible to develop a sole that will grip 
the ground without tearing the grass 
plant asunder.

Perhaps instead of one pair of shoes 
for all seasons, golfers should have two 
pairs of shoes for two seasons; a spikeless 
shoe for normal weather conditions and 
a spiked shoe, if necessary at all for 
the golfer, for wet days. Oh! What a 
relief THAT would be! It would save 
our putting greens, our clubhouses 
and our maintenance budgets millions 
of dollars a year. And, yes, it could mean 
at least another 800 years for the Swilcan 
Bridge. That along would make it 
worthwhile!

SHOE No. 1

SHOE No. 2 & No. 4

SHOE No. 3

IN SUMMARY

Metal spikes 
Long, pointed spikes
Mechanical tearing, piercing
Low surface contact area 
11 or 12 spikes per shoe 
Spikes with shoulders

HIGH TURF DAMAGE

Composition sole 
Shorter, blunt studs
Medium surface contact area
Approximately 108 studs per shoe

MEDIUM TURF DAMAGE

Composition sole 
No spikes
High surface contact area 
750 small rubber cleats

LOW TURF DAMAGE

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983 

7

Nursery Rhymes

by CHARLES B. WHITE
Director, Southeastern Region, USGA Green Section

CHURCHES HAVE nurseries, 

hospitals have nurseries, health 
clubs have nurseries and shopping 
centers have nurseries. We have child 
nurseries, animal nurseries, ornamental 
nurseries, and even tree nurseries, but 
not often enough do we have good golf 
course nurseries! Why is that?

Too often a golf course nursery doesn’t 
exist, or it is in a sad state of repair. 
If one does exist, seldom does it reflect 
the quality of turf found on the golf 
course itself, particularly if it’s a putting 
green nursery. It may have been origi­
nally seeded to the same grass as the 
regular greens, but it is usually neglected 
with time, and a sod of poorer quality 
results. In that state, the nursery’s chief 
use is as an occasional lunch time 
practice area for the crew, or an exper­
imental testing ground to kill grass. 
These are not really the functions of a 
sod nursery in a top flight operation.

A true golf course nursery, defined 
in the purest sense, is a turfgrass area 
where sod is grown and kept readily 
available for use on putting greens, 
collars, tees, and fairways. It is managed 
exactly as the intended “use t area” on 
the course. It requires this kind of 
maintenance so that it will be completely 
functional when installed. There is little 
value to a putting green sod nursery 
maintained at !4-inch height of cut. If 
it is ever needed on the course, it will 
take weeks to become acclimated to 
actual putting green conditions. Unfor­
tunately, this type of situation is more 
often the rule than the exception when 
so-called “nursery areas” are established 
and maintained on many golf courses 
today.

If a putting green nursery is established, 
it should be mowed, watered, treated 
with pesticides, and culturally managed 
just as a regular green. Later, when sod 
or plugs are transplanted onto the putting 
surfaces of the golf course, there is no 
shock factor to contend with, other than 
the actual movement process of the 
grass itself.

To do it right, a putting green sod 
nursery should be established with 

8 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

the same soil as that found in the existing 
greens. This prevents soil layering at 
a later date whenever the sod is used. 
If heavy or poor soil conditions exist 
on the greens, however, then a root 
zone may be established in the nursery, 
having a slightly higher sand content 
without creating an extremely sandy 
condition. Mixing a quality topdressing 
sand and soil similar to that of the 
putting green profile is one suggestion. 
This may not produce the most desirable 
root zone, but it will be more compatible 
with the particular greens, especially 
if a long range aerification and top­
dressing program is instigated.

When establishing a tee or fairway 
nursery, a slight rise or fill of 10 to 12 
inches above normal ground level with 
a quality soil is suggested for a proper 
root zone to become established, and 
so the area will not be subjected to 
surface runoff from adjacent areas. If 
raising the height of the nursery is not 
possible, then it should be plowed deeply 
to remove any compaction or hardpans. 
If soil and nutritional amendments are 
necessary, they should be added to the 
final soil mix and thoroughly incorpo­
rated into it.

Soil sterilization is especially important 
on putting green nurseries, since it is the 
only method of insuring complete 
eradication of foreign grasses and weed 
seeds. Methyl bromide is widely and 
carefully used at the rate of one pound 
per 100 square feet for effective weed 
control. If the putting green sod nursery 
is not free of weeds, how can it improve 
the golf course on a long term basis?

SOUND CULTURAL programs 

are essential on nursery areas to 
promote the most actively growing 

turfgrass possible. This is not accom­
plished with nitrogen'. Nursery areas 
are not usually subjected to traffic, and, 
therefore, thatch accumulation is a 
serious problem. Traffic, especially 
on greens, can reduce thatch buildup. 
If an area is not subjected to traffic, 
lower nitrogen rates and rigorous 
vertical mowing, aerification and

topdressing programs are the main 
means of thatch control. Sod with 
excessive thatch is most difficult to 
install properly, prevent from scalping, 
and establish in its new location. Proper 
installation sometimes is virtually 
impossible, and so keeping thatch under 
control in the nursery is extremely ’ 
important.

Other critical management factors 

include the maintenance of proper soil « 
pH and nutritional levels. This will 
insure optimum growth and vigorous 
stolons, rhizomes and root systems.
If these growing areas of the grass plant 
are maintained in an active state, the 
sod nursery will be at maximum aggres­
siveness and recuperative potential.

How large should a nursery be? 
Answers vary from individual to 
individual, but ideally a putting green

(Above) A large bentgrass putting green 
nursery and systematic removal of sod.

(Right) Example of systematic removal of 
plugs.

nursery should be as big as the two 
largest greens on the golf course. This 
provides a workable size for sod removal 
to offset unexpected disasters, vandalism, 
loss due to chemical burn, insect or 
disease invasions. A good rule of thumb 
for tee nursery size is to keep an area 
about the equivalent of the three largest 
tees if the tee grass is different from the 
fairway grass. If the turf is the same on 
tees and fairways, then 1 to 1 acres will 
provide an excellent source of sprigs, 
sod or plugs for all of the areas. Such a 
nursery would most economically be 
maintained under fairway conditions, 
since a strong, healthy turf can quickly 
adapt to teeing surfaces, if necessary. 
It is important to stress again that a 
large enough area is needed to be feasibly 
workable in the removal of sod and 
rejuvenation of grasses.

Sod removal from a nursery should 
not be in a random or “stealing” pattern 
of sod plugs from all over the area. The 
process should begin at one side of the 
nursery and removal accomplished in 
a systematic order from one side to 
the other. If random removal of plugs 
or sod is allowed, great quantities of 
quality sod are wasted, uneven surfaces 
quickly develop, and regular maintenance 
practices (mowing, fertilization, etc.) 
are made more difficult. The practice 
also prevents a large, untouched uniform 
area of quality sod from being available 

when and if large sod quantities are 
needed.

Sod from a nursery should be cut 
as thin as possible (usually between 
!4-inch to %-inch), so long as it holds 
together when carefully handled. This 
allows it to be laid down in the smoothest 
conditions. Thick sod is much more 
difficult to handle. The layering from 
thick sod is also more difficult to remove 
with aeration than layering from thin 
sod. Thin sod also saves money, because 
less fill soil is needed to refill the area 
from which the original sod was removed.
Putting green sod should never be 
rolled up for transportation or handling 
purposes. This stretches and opens the 
sod. There is frequently a loss of soil, 
causing an uneven surface (requiring 
more topdressings). Putting green sod 
should be transported in aflat condition.
If proper fertilization practices are 
maintained (providing adequate phos­
phorous and potassium to produce 
vigorous root systems, the new sod 
will begin its root system rejuvenation 
about 24 hours after it is placed in its 
new location. Even so, an application 
of 16-20-0 or an activated sludge 
incorporated in the new sod bed, prior 
to the laying of the sod, will prove 
beneficial. This fertilizer application 
should be watered in lightly. Thus, in 
a period of about one week, the new 
sod will have pegged down fairly well.

SODDING IS a very tedious and 

time consuming task. It should not 
be rushed. Proper sodding techniques 

include fitting the sods together as 
tightly as possible and then smoothing, 
rolling and/or tamping the sod as 
necessary. Filling all remaining cracks 
between the sod strips with soil will 
reduce wilting and drying out of sod 
edges. It will also help produce a smooth 
and uniform surface as rapidly as 
possible. Careful follow-up irrigation 
practices will also be necessary for 
several days after completing the 
sodding job.

It should be no surprise that, once a 
good source of sod is available on any 
golf course today, the superintendent 
will find increased uses for it. Thin and 
worn areas, once impossible to improve, 
will be rapidly repaired Scars from 
vandalism and other causes will no 
longer be an eyesore and distraction 
for weeks on end. Such situations are 
not pleasing to members, and if they 
are corrected, the membership soon 
recognizes the golf course superintendent 
for setting things right as soon as possible.
Consider the importance of a properly 
planned and managed sod nursery at 
your golf course. It holds benefits for 
the course, the membership and, equally 
important, for the golf course superin­
tendent as well. It’s good management. 
Your golf course needs a nursery!

Maintaining a vigorous turf ensures rapid healing after systematic removal of plugs.

The first hole on the Ocean Course, Olympic Club, San Francisco, California.

The Golf Course Superintendent and 
Maintaining the Integrity 
of the Course

by JOHN FLEMING, Superintendent, 
Olympic Club at Lakeside, San Francisco

THE OLYMPIC CLUB in San 

Francisco, has been the site of 
four United States National 
Championships. The memories of the 
1958 U.S. Amateur and the U.S. Opens 
of 1955 and 1966 were certainly equalled 
in excitement and drama by the 1981 
Amateur Championship, which was 
decided on the 37th hole of match play. 
I remember the gallery climbing the 
hill behind the 18th green to the first 
tee, with the match even at the end of 
36 holes, and my own little moment of 
drama when I finally realized I’d 

assigned the course ranger to pick up 
the flagsticks following the afternoon 
round. Anyway, we found the flag­
stick for the first hole, and as you all 
know, Nathaniel Crosby won the Cham­
pionship.

The decision to conduct a USGA 
Championship brings with it an 
enormous commitment on the part of a 
club, its membership, and staff. Our 
commitment was extended to include 
both the Ocean and Lake courses because 
of the size of the field at 282 players. 
The seven-day event included two days 

of practice rounds, two days of qualifying 
by stroke play, with the field cut to 64 
players for the final four days of match 
play on the Lake Course.

Certainly, much has been whispered 
about the USGA philosophy of course 
operation and the stringent demands 
placed upon a club and its superintendent 
in preparing for a championship. 
Contrary to that belief, my two years 
of involvement with the Green Section 
Staff and Championship Committee 
offered an unusual opportunity for 
professional advancement and insight 

SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983 

11

on “championship conditioning.” I 
found Al Radko, Billy Buchanan, and 
Don Hoos to be true professionals with 
a wealth of knowledge, realism, and 
good common sense.

Let me take a minute to extract from 
the course preparation reports a few 
of these so-called stringent demands 
I received during the two-year prepa­
ration period:

1. Establish firm, keen greens. Do 

not overwater.

2. Establish firm, dry, level turf on 

tees. Do not overwater.

3. Eliminate hard and soft spots on 

fairways.

4. Avoid high applications of nitrogen. 
One-third to one-half pound per month 
should be sufficient.
5. Avoid fluffiness.
6. Fertilize rough only where necessary.
7. Sand on faces of bunkers should be 

shallow and firm. Remove excess.

8. Avoid overuse of fungicides. 
Integrate applications of potassium 
to aid in root development and increase 
disease resistance.

9. Apply light but frequent appli­
cations of topdressing to create firm 
and true putting surfaces.
10. Remove any artificial direction 
or distance markers.
11. Tee signs need not be elaborate; 
they need only provide the necessary 
information in a neat, clean style.

SOUNDS MORE like a lesson in 

fiscal responsibility than an agro­
nomic report. If one were to view these 

recommendations as stringent demands, 
he certainly would need to take a closer 
look at his operation. There’s a great 
lesson for all of us to learn here, partic­
ularly in this age of rising costs and 
inflation.

“Overgrooming really is overspending.” 
If moderation is the key to successful 
preparation for a major championship, 
surely moderation should play a key 
role in developing our philosophy on 
everyday course maintenance. Our 
major responsibility as superintendents 
is the daily preparation of the stage on 
which the game of golf is played. We 
must never forget that the game is what 
counts, and that all else is secondary. 
Nowhere is this statement more true 
than at a USGA event.

There is an old adage that states, “Get 
involved with the people involved.” 
The week of the Championship allows 
ample time to meet with officials, staff 
and contestants, and to seek their 
comments on course conditioning.

12 USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD

Nathaniel Crosby winning the 1981 United States Amateur Championship at the Olympic 
Club, San Francisco, California.

You’ll find the USGA Committee 
members and staff to be a hardy bunch, 
on the job early in the morning and in 
the evening after the matches have 
ended. The superintendent assigned 
to a championship site would do well 
to note that his time to relax is while 
the competition is in progress. The 
early morning and late afternoon are 
sacred to course preparation.

Perhaps it was the size of the field, 
which required starting times beginning 
at 7:00 a.m. through 2:30 p.m., but I 
found much of the planning for the 
course set-up was accomplished on 
the evening before the matches, and 
finalized the next morning. Following 
the last match of the day, I would join 
up with the Green Section representatives 
and Championship Committee officials 
on their rounds. Tees were checked 
and the selection of tee placement made 
and marked. Greens were checked for 
firmness and resilience to foot traffic. 
Hole location was given considerable 
attention and discussion. The criteria 
was based on the following:

1. Length of the shot to the green and 
how it would be affected by probable 
conditions (i.e., wind, fog), and also 
by the holding quality of the green.

2.The opportunity for recovery if a 
reasonably good shot just missed the 
green.

3. Changes in the degree of slope on 

the green.

4. Balance of hole locations for the 
entire course with respect to left, right, 
center, front, and back positions.

5. And last, selection of six difficult 
hole locations, six that are somewhat 
less difficult and six moderately difficult.
After selection was made, each cup 
location was measured, marked with a 
golf tee, and verified the next morning 
before the cup was moved.

Post play maintenance in the after­
noon included fairway, tee and collar 
mowing, plus daily mowing of the six- 
foot wide intermediate rough surrounding 
fairways and greens. Divot repair on 
the par 3s and the drive areas of the 
par 4s and 5s was also an afternoon 
assignment.

Morning duties included dew removal 
on the fairways, double mowing of 
the greens, plus practice putting greens, 
recording of green speed, maintenance 
of the bunkers, and a final check on 
hole locations to insure that the hole 
is cut as near vertical as possible and 
that the hole liner is at least one inch 
below the putting green surface. During 
the week of the Championship, fairways 
were cut to '/-inch, putting greens to 
%-inch, intermediate rough at 2 inches, 
primary rough at 4 inches, and tees 
and collars at %-inch. Width of the

fairways varied from 28 to 40 yards in 
the drive area, depending on the difficulty 
of the hole.

A FEW COMMENTS on green 

.management during the tourna­
ment are in order. The first and most 

important requirement is consistency 
(i.e., consistency from one green to the 
next). Greens should putt at approx­
imately the same speed and receive a 
well-struck ball with the same action. 
Herein lies the basic need for firm greens. 
Consistency was the main reason for 
the development of the Stimpmeter. 
It is a very simple but precise instrument 
for measuring green speed, and a very 
useful tool in preparing for a tournament 
and maintaining consistency during 
play. During the Amateur, green speed 
approached 10 feet during the practice 
and qualifying rounds, and leveled out 
at a reading of 10 feet, 6 inches, for 
the four days of match play.

Mention should also be made of the 
very fine line that exists between firm 
and hard. I recall the first day of qual­
ifying. Visibility was so bad on the 
Ocean Course that we had an hour delay 
because of the fog. Then conditions 
changed rapidly and the winds blew 
to 30 miles per hour. What proved to 
be firm in the morning became hard 
as the day progressed. The officials 
debated the idea of watering the greens. 
The final decision was for no water and 
it proved to be the correct one. The next 
day normal San Francisco weather 
prevailed. It would have been easy to 
put the water on, but hard to take it 
off. So, we can draw from this analogy 
that just as the tools are available for 
the superintendent to deal with adversity, 
the shots are in the bag for the golfer 
to deal with it as well. The reward in 
both cases goes to those who make 
their choices wisely.

I’ve written briefly about grooming 
a golf course; not overgrooming, but 
grooming to develop quality playing 
conditions. There is no need for one- 
upsmanship in our business. The rule 
is simple: maintain the integrity of the 
golf course. It is certainly one of the 
duties of the golf course superintendent. 
Perhaps it can best be summed up by 
saying the goal of any golf course is 
to have but one rule, and that is, 
“USGA Rules apply.”

The famous 18th hole, Lake Course, 
Olympic Club, San Francisco, California.

USGA GREEN SECTION RECORD
SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1983

TURF TWISTERS

AFTER 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE

Question: I have sent putting green soil mixture components to the USGA Soils Laboratory and to 
another soils laboratory in my region. I have received two somewhat different recommendations 
regarding the best mix. What is my next step? (Alabama)

Answer: First, let us correct a misunderstanding and state that it is not the “USGA Soils 
Laboratory.” Rather, Agri-Systems Laboratory of Texas is a private contractor. The 
USGA Green Section has made arrangements with Dr. Marvin H. Ferguson, President of 
Agri-Systems, to conduct the physical soil analysis requirements for USGA Green Section 
Specification Greens. Dr. Ferguson was instrumental in developing the Specifications 
in the early 1960s and has had over 20 years of laboratory and field experience with them.

FILLING HOLES WITH TOP DRESSING

Question: Filling holes with top dressing after aeration is time consuming and costly. Is it really 
necessary or beneficial? (Florida)

Answer: Definitely yes. Filling aeration holes reduces insect infestation and can double 
or triple the recovery time from bumpy surfaces to smooth surfaces. Also, heat can build 
up in the empty aerifyer holes, which can restrict vigorous root rejuvenation. Of course, 
'/-inch holes are easier to fill than '/-inch holes.

HERE TO STAY

Question: We have had a great deal of difficulty growing trees on our golf course. The irrigation 
system reaches to the trees and the edges of the fairways, yet one irrigation specialist has told us that 
this is not sufficient irrigation for the trees. Is that correct? (Montana)

Answer: Yes. In most of the arid West where water is in short supply, tree establishment 
can be enhanced greatly by use of a drip irrigation system. Such a system will help you 
conserve moisture and keep tree roots out of the fairways. Drip irrigation will be more 
widely used on golf courses in the future. It’s here to stay!