|
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
Reprinted from the USGA Green Section Record
1983 September/October Vol 21(5): 1-7
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 contradictions,
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 Championship,
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 compaction 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 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. 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 spikeless shoes. Hooray for them, for
they shall lead the way to better putting turf at a lower cost.
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 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
l/2-inch depth of thatch. 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,
individually 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.
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.
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.
The Walkway Ratings
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
Apparent damage to the putting plots increased throughout the duration
of the study. Shoes No. 1, 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.
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.
Immediately at the conclusion of Phase I, the subjective determination
of the putting qualities of each plot was made. Paul McGuire (PGA),
Julie Lynd (LPGA), and Ross O'Fee (amateur golfer) cooperated in
this experiment. 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.
Table 1 Putting Surface Quality as Affected by Shoe Type
(Normal weather Conditions)
| Shoe |
Average
Putting Rating |
| 1 |
6.8* |
| 2 |
3.9b |
| 3 |
3.6b |
| 4 |
4.4b |
| Check Plot |
3.9b |
* Rating of 1 being excellant and 10 being extremely poor. Ratings
followed by the same letter are not significantly different, Duncan's
Multiple Range Test.
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.
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.
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 more damage
than Shoe No. 4, and Shoe No. 4 caused more damage than Shoe No.
3.
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. 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, 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.
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 technical age, a new idea for golf shoes may be lurking somewhere.
Surely it is 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 Metal spikes |
Long,
pointed spikes
Mechanical tearing, piercing
Low surface contact area
11 or 12 spikes per shoe
Spikes with shoulders
HIGH TURF DAMAGE
|
| SHOE No. 2 & No. 4 Composition
sole |
Shorter, blunt studs
Medium surface contact area
Approximately 108 studs per shoe
MEDIUM TURF DAMAGE
|
| SHOE No. 3 Composition
sole |
No spikes
High surface contact area
750 small rubber cleats
LOW TURF DAMAGE
|
|
|
|
|
