Golf Ball-Mark Recovery Affected by Surface Firmness and Repair Tool

Repair Tool Affects Scar Area and Recovery

Initial ball mark volumes for the soft and firm surface areas resulted in mean sand masses of 9.08 and 5.01 grams, respectively. Not surprisingly, increased moisture in the soft area resulted in larger ball-mark volumes, potentially prolonging ball-mark recovery time.

All repair tools resulted in a smooth surface immediately following repair with little or no disruption visible but resulted in small necrotic spots where the ball mark had previously been repaired, which is consistent with other research (Fry et al., 2005; Munshaw et al., 2007).

As expected, scar areas were largest on the first rating date. Ball-mark scars left unrepaired in the soft area were substantially larger, 640 vs. 459 square millimeters (mm2), than those in the firm area. Scar area decreased over time and by 28 days after repair (DAR) all tools resulted in equivalent scar areas in both areas. Significant differences were observed early in the study. For example, scar areas ranged 156 to 509 mm2 in the soft area and 210 to 356 mm2 in the firm area at five DAR, which was expected with the larger scar cavities produced in the soft areas.

For both areas the lowest numerical scar area was measured for the GFW, although not statistically different from the TT on any measurement date.

By 21 DAR the GFW was equal to both long-tong tools. This is consistent with a previous study (Munshaw et al., 2007) reporting that using tools with the push technique, such as the GFW, resulted in no significant difference in ball-mark diameter compared to using a standard long-tong tool and the traditional method.

Surprisingly, one of the worst-performing tools in this study was the WGT, which was similar to an unrepaired mark on all measurement dates in the firm area and six of seven dates in the soft area. Additionally, the ATT was not substantially different from the unrepaired marks on four of seven measurement dates for the soft area and all dates in the firm area. Aside from improving surface smoothness by reducing the scar cavity, it appears there is no major benefit to using the ATT and WGT to repair ball marks.

Summary and Recommendations

In this study, the TT and the GFW resulted in the fastest ball-mark recovery time. The ATT was not significantly different from the unrepaired marks on four of seven measurement dates for the soft area and all dates in the firm area. The longest recovery was associated with the WGT, which was similar to an unrepaired mark on most rating dates making it an undesirable choice for ball-mark repair.

Furthermore, it is clear from this study that many factors affect ball-mark recovery. Surface firmness and repair tool both play an important role in recovery time. Maintaining drier and firmer surfaces by rolling, irrigating deep and infrequently, and using management practices that decrease organic matter such as core cultivation and sand topdressing could provide better resistance to ball marks and decrease the recovery period by ensuring smaller initial ball mark scar cavities.

Jared Nemitz is an assistant superintendent at the Ford Plantation Golf Course in Richmond Hill, Ga. He can be contacted at jnemitz@purdue.edu. Adam Moeller is a United States Golf Association agronomist in the Northeast Region. He can be contacted at amoeller@usga.org. Cale Bigelow is an associate professor of agronomy/turfgrass science at Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. He can be reached at cbigelow@purdue.edu.

1 2 3 

• Podcasts
• Online Exclusives
• Industry News
• The Links
• Golfdom Insider
• Turfgrass Trends
• Special Reports
• The Golfdom Report
• Archives
• LandscapeManagement.net