SportsTurf provides current, practical and technical content on issues relevant to sports turf managers, including facilities managers. Most readers are athletic field managers from the professional level through parks and recreation, universities.
Issue link: https://read.dmtmag.com/i/43432
value. By week 2 Mar Mound firmed dra- matically, with the wear pattern going from a hole to merely large cleat indentations. By the final week Mar Mound was performing very well; it was extremely firm and finished with two straight weeks in which the wear per 100 pitches was below 2 inches. The wear became spread out, with very little product needed for re-working. Turface: Turface, especially in week 1, performed very similar to Mar Mound, with a deep hole dug at the toe plate that continued into week 2. By weeks 3 and 4 Turface showed signif- icant improvement in terms of wear with an average displacement of 2.5 inches. The third day of week 4 (Apr 6) bumped this average up due to the wet conditions caused by rain the previous day. One of the most desirable attributes of Turface was its ability to give, yet remain firm. A number of the 14 pitchers commented on their comfort from this mound. One pitcher said, "The landing area was soft enough to land on and not feel stiff on your front leg. This helps me keep the ball down in the zone." Diamond Pro: This product was one of the most consistent throughout the study, showing less displacement than the others, especially by week 4. The main difference between Diamond Pro and the others was in how it wore. When the area was a bit wet, as in week 1, it would deform, but at all other times cleat indentation was the only sign of wear. This firmness required very little product to be used for re-work- ing. Often times scarifying and tamping the worn areas was sufficient. Many pitch- ers preferred Diamond Pro amongst the group, but the firmness caused some con- sistent complaints such as: "I don't feel comfortable pushing off and landing on this surface"; or "I feel restrained in the landing area which may affect my fielding ability; and, finally: "I can't get enough torque or spin off the toe plate because it is too firm". Pro's Choice: This product took the most time to form and build the mound. Once built, the clay areas performed very well. During week 1 it was the material with the least wear. Pro's Choice wore dif- ferently than the others as it would chip off rather than leaving a hole (Mar Mound and www.stma.org Turface) or just cleat indentations (Dia- mond Pro). Some of the pitchers com- plained about this chipping leaving slick areas that restricted their torque. The land- ing area was extremely firm which was viewed as a plus or a minus depending on pitcher preference. PITCHER PREFERENCES At the end of the study each pitcher was asked to pick their favorite product. Many wanted a firm, strong product that would not give out when they landed. Others pre- ferred something softer that could help them finish their motion and keep pitches down in the strike zone. The 14 votes were as follows: Mar Mound (2); Turface (3); Diamond Pro (6); and Pro's Choice (3). FIELD MANAGER PERSPECTIVE We put the four products into two cate- gories, high and low initial input. The two products that were not as easy to use straight out of the bag we placed in the high initial input category: Diamond Pro and Pro's Choice. Mar Mound and Turface were very user-friendly so we describe them as low initial input. For those managing a larger facility with a lower budget and many fields to work on weekly, we would choose Mar Mound first and Turface a close second. For those managers on higher profile fields who may not mind the extra up-front time required to prepare their mound, we would recommend Diamond Pro first and Pro's Choice second. However, these are fine distinctions we have drawn and we would like to close with a quote from our primary author: "All four prod- ucts were better than anything I have ever used or thrown from in my 17 years of playing baseball." ■ Gerald Henson is a former Virginia Tech turf student; Chad Kropff is sports turf & out- door facilities manager; and Erik H. Ervin, PhD, is a professor, Turfgrass Culture & Physi- ology, at Virginia Tech. SportsTurf 11