Un-repaired ball marks on putting greens can be a bane to golfers and superintendents alike. There are numerous tools and repair methods on the market that claim to quickly return putting green surfaces to pristine conditions. But do these tools and methods live up to their claims? 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 x magenissii Hurc.) greens maintained at 3.2 and 3.6 mm. A pneumatic golf ball-firing device was built to provide uniform ball marks on the turf and ball marks were created on 30.5 cm centers. Nine commercial ball mark repair tools along with specific repair methods, a golf tee, and a non-repaired control were implemented. Multiple human repairers were used to evaluate tool/method consistency. Early data shows significant differences in repairers occurred, however, there was not a significant repairer x tool interaction for any tested parameter. Visual turfgrass assessment immediately after repair showed that tools with methods that push turf material towards the center of the ball mark tended to result in the highest quality of repair. Tools with methods that lifted soil from the center of the ball mark resulted in the lowest quality after repair, while a method using a gentle twisting motion of turf material towards the center resulted in an intermediate level of repair. This trend continued until recovery, approximately 4 wk after initial damage. Ball mark diameter 1 wk after repair continued to show that tools designed to push healthy turf forward had a smaller damaged area than tools designed to lift soil. However, there were no differences in diameter in subsequent weeks.
See more of Establishment, Cultivation, Irrigation, and Fertility
See more of C05 Turfgrass Science
See more of The ASA-CSSA-SSSA International Annual Meetings (November 6-10, 2005)