Golf ball/pitch marks disrupt putting green surface smoothness and uniformity. A commonly used method for repairing ball/pitch marks employs a traditional metal forked (approx= 3 cm) tool (TT) and a knit-and-twist method. This procedure has the potential to disturb roots and slow turf recovery. New tools intended to minimize root disruption have been introduced, however, performance data relative to the TT is limited. This field study evaluated ball/pitch mark recovery as affected by four repair tools [TT, angled traditional tool (ATT), GreenFix Wizard (GFW), and standard length wooden golf tee (WGT)] on two creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L. cult. ennlinksa areas with contrasting initial surface firmness and rootzone moisture contents. Recovery was quantified using visual scar injury (SI) ratings and scar area measurements. Among repair tools the TT and GFW generally resulted in the highest SI ratings and fastest recovery. The ATT performance was intermediate and the poorest recoverywas associated with the WGT, which was similar to the unrepaired mark on most rating and measurement dates. Although repair tools affected recovery, factors such as surface firmness and moisture content were also very important. Larger and significantlydeeper ball marks occurred on the softer surface, resulting in longer recovery periods.
展开▼
