Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
IGNORED

Aerated Greens: How Long to Return to "Normal" Play?


Note: This thread is 1222 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
Posted

My home course was aerated just 2 weeks ago, and have pretty much recovered.  However, when we aerated in the spring it was closer to 4 weeks for complete recovery.  The difference, to my relatively uneducated mind, was that the Spring work was done as the grass was just beginning to grow after being mostly dormant for the winter.  The current aerification was done in peak growing season, so the recovery was much quicker.  

I've seen a lot of different methods for aerification, small to large tines, even water-jet based equipment.  A superintendent will choose different methods based on the current conditions of the greens.  A real quick search found this article explaining a bit of it.:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/clubhouse/2017-ungated/09-17-ungated/5-things-every-golfer-should-know-about-aeration.html#:~:text=We aerate to improve%2C not,and promoting healthy turf roots.

 

Dave

:callaway: Rogue SubZero Driver

:titleist: 915F 15 Fairway, 816 H1 19 Hybrid, AP2 4 iron to PW, Vokey 52, 56, and 60 wedges, ProV1 balls 
:ping: G5i putter, B60 version
 :ping:Hoofer Bag, complete with Newport Cup logo
:footjoy::true_linkswear:, and Ashworth shoes

the only thing wrong with this car is the nut behind the wheel.

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
On 5/30/2018 at 7:26 AM, jetsknicks1 said:

What’s wrong with calling a 2 putt? If you’re not playing in a tournament or using the score for HC purposes, what’s the harm? My regular group will call 2 putts from certain distances if the greens are in rough shape. As long as everybody is on board, I don’t see the problem.

I was so frustrated after a round at one of my local courses that I looked this up. The accepted rule is that if you're inside 20 feet, then call it a two putt. 

One writer described aerated greens as close to GUR, hence the rule. 

I'd describe the greens I referred to earlier as unplayable. You can almost never get a read, and even when you can, the ball is at the mercy of the bumps and punch-holes. The only seemingly viable solution I read about is to aim dead straight at the hole and hit the ball hard enough for it to go 3-4 feet past the hole. 

The rules of golf are as they should be, but there is no rule of golf that demands you voluntarily ruin your score. 

They call it golf because the other four-letter words were taken. – Ray Floyd

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)

Depends on the course conditions at the time, and the attitude of management towards those conditions. 

As well as the type of Aeration- small tine can be back to normal in a few days. Even most Muni's around here can be back to perfectly playable in just over 7/10 days after a full plug aeration. "Normal" conditions in about 2-3 weeks. 

I'm usually not all THAT bothered by aerated greens- especially at our usual courses, as long as they let you know before you go out. But If I show up at a new course that is more of a 'premium' course and pay full price and find aerated greens, I'd be a bit peeved. 

 

I'm not out to chase numbers so we go out and do the "2 putt" thing once we get inside a certain distance. Gimme's are stretched a bit to length of the putter, not just "inside the leather". But we do at least give it a go- just in case... 

Edited by RayG

Posted

I'd say it depends upon who does it. They punched and sanded the greens last Monday. I played Friday PM. Friday morning they rolled the greens and they were playing a little slow in places, but mostly were better than they were the week before punching. Kemper Sports runs the course. I expect they'll be playing quite nice this week. 

When the greens are freshly sanded, we just play auto-two putt for a day or two. Scores are not reported.

Julia

:callaway:  :cobra:    :seemore:  :bushnell:  :clicgear:  :adidas:  :footjoy:

Spoiler

Driver: Callaway Big Bertha w/ Fubuki Z50 R 44.5"
FW: Cobra BiO CELL 14.5 degree; 
Hybrids: Cobra BiO CELL 22.5 degree Project X R-flex
Irons: Cobra BiO CELL 5 - GW Project X R-Flex
Wedges: Cobra BiO CELL SW, Fly-Z LW, 64* Callaway PM Grind.
Putter: 48" Odyssey Dart

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted (edited)

Worked on a course

1 week out they are pretty annoying still

2 weeks out they are not great but returning to normal

after 4 weeks they should be normal again may be up to 6 weeks before they are pristine / better than before though

Of course it depends on how good condition the greens were in before aerating, how well the team aerated and grated in the sand and what mother nature decides to do in the meantime. Drought conditions will exacerbate and overly moist conditions will cause other issues but generally cooler / wetter is better than hotter and dryer.

Edited by SullyGolf

Note: This thread is 1222 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • My next golf trip will probably be a short one, but I’m really looking forward to it. I’m thinking of staying relatively close, picking a spot with a few solid courses and making a long weekend out of it. For me, the best golf trips are about good courses, relaxed vibes, and time away with friends.
    • Nah, man. People have been testing clubs like this for decades at this point. Even 35 years. @M2R, are you AskGolfNut? If you're not, you seem to have fully bought into the cult or something. So many links to so many videos… Here's an issue, too: - A drop of 0.06 is a drop with a 90 MPH 7I having a ball speed of 117 and dropping it to 111.6, which is going to be nearly 15 yards, which is far more than what a "3% distance loss" indicates (and is even more than a 4.6% distance loss). - You're okay using a percentage with small numbers and saying "they're close" and "1.3 to 1.24 is only 4.6%," but then you excuse the massive 53% difference that going from 3% to 4.6% represents. That's a hell of an error! - That guy in the Elite video is swinging his 7I at 70 MPH. C'mon. My 5' tall daughter swings hers faster than that.
    • Yea but that is sort of my quandary, I sometimes see posts where people causally say this club is more forgiving, a little more forgiving, less forgiving, ad nauseum. But what the heck are they really quantifying? The proclamation of something as fact is not authoritative, even less so as I don't know what the basis for that statement is. For my entire golfing experience, I thought of forgiveness as how much distance front to back is lost hitting the face in non-optimal locations. Anything right or left is on me and delivery issues. But I also have to clarify that my experience is only with irons, I never got to the point of having any confidence or consistency with anything longer. I feel that is rather the point, as much as possible, to quantify the losses by trying to eliminate all the variables except the one you want to investigate. Or, I feel like we agree. Compared to the variables introduced by a golfer's delivery and the variables introduced by lie conditions, the losses from missing the optimal strike location might be so small as to almost be noise over a larger area than a pea.  In which case it seems that your objection is that the 0-3% area is being depicted as too large. Which I will address below. For statements that is absurd and true 100% sweet spot is tiny for all clubs. You will need to provide some objective data to back that up and also define what true 100% sweet spot is. If you mean the area where there are 0 losses, then yes. While true, I do not feel like a not practical or useful definition for what I would like to know. For strikes on irons away from the optimal location "in measurable and quantifiable results how many yards, or feet, does that translate into?"   In my opinion it ok to be dubious but I feel like we need people attempting this sort of data driven investigation. Even if they are wrong in some things at least they are moving the discussion forward. And he has been changing the maps and the way data is interpreted along the way. So, he admits to some of the ideas he started with as being wrong. It is not like we all have not been in that situation 😄 And in any case to proceed forward I feel will require supporting or refuting data. To which as I stated above, I do not have any experience in drivers so I cannot comment on that. But I would like to comment on irons as far as these heat maps. In a video by Elite Performance Golf Studios - The TRUTH About Forgiveness! Game Improvement vs Blade vs Players Distance SLOW SWING SPEED! and going back to ~12:50 will show the reference data for the Pro 241. I can use that to check AskGolfNut's heat map for the Pro 241: a 16mm heel, 5mm low produced a loss of efficiency from 1.3 down to 1.24 or ~4.6%. Looking at AskGolfNut's heatmap it predicts a loss of 3%. Is that good or bad? I do not know but given the possible variations I am going to say it is ok. That location is very close to where the head map goes to 4%, these are very small numbers, and rounding could be playing some part. But for sure I am going to say it is not absurd. Looking at one data point is absurd, but I am not going to spend time on more because IME people who are interested will do their own research and those not interested cannot be persuaded by any amount of data. However, the overall conclusion that I got from that video was that between the three clubs there is a difference in distance forgiveness, but it is not very much. Without some robot testing or something similar the human element in the testing makes it difficult to say is it 1 yard, or 2, or 3?  
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟨🟩⬜⬜ ⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,668 3/6 🟨🟩🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩 Should have got it in two, but I have music on my brain.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.