[Don_Mahaffey]

Mike Young,
Most Supers I know would agree with you.

[Tom_Doak]

I'll "third" what Mike Young wrote above, since Don already seconded ...

We have rebuilt greens to USGA specs at a couple of clubs and both superintendents lost their jobs within two years.  The members of each club expected the greens to be perfect from day one, and the superintendents felt under the gun to produce results in a medium they weren't familiar with; they pushed it too far and had problems right away, and since it was their idea to rebuild the greens, they got the boot.

Patrick:

I did as you suggested at Sebonack, and let Michael Pascucci make the call on the greens mix, but he wisely let his superintendent make the call since it isn't Michael's area of expertise, and since the superintendent is ultimately the one responsible for the performance of the greens.  However, I concur with Mike and Jeff that letting someone else decide doesn't necessarily keep you out of court.  I've been lucky so far.

[Steve Okula]

I did, however, volunteer to quit the project if the superintendent insisted on building Sub-Air greens in the Hamptons.

What is your objection to the sub-air?

[Tom_Doak]

Steve:

It makes the greens even harder to build, and I couldn't see the need for such an elaborate system in a relatively mild climate like the Hamptons.

I really believe the only reason for Sub Air is to allow superintendents and owners to plant cool-season grass on the greens in hot and humid climates when they ought to be planting something else.  And, in general, I object to any new technology which will further drive up the cost of the game.  Somehow the game has managed to survive 500 years without Sub Air.

[paul cowley]

Steve:

It makes the greens even harder to build, and I couldn't see the need for such an elaborate system in a relatively mild climate like the Hamptons.

I really believe the only reason for Sub Air is to allow superintendents and owners to plant cool-season grass on the greens in hot and humid climates when they ought to be planting something else.  And, in general, I object to any new technology which will further drive up the cost of the game.  Somehow the game has managed to survive 500 years without Sub Air.

I agree....we have installed sub air mainly where they want to grow bent grass on courses in the humid South East....where the summer heat and excess moisture in the green can combine to stew the root zone.

I feel that if the grass on a green needs fans or subair for life support, then it's a poor choice to begin with....especially with the new and improved ultra dwarf Bermudas as options....and with even newer Paspalum varieties lurking on the horizon.

[Mike_Young]

Steve:

It makes the greens even harder to build, and I couldn't see the need for such an elaborate system in a relatively mild climate like the Hamptons.

I really believe the only reason for Sub Air is to allow superintendents and owners to plant cool-season grass on the greens in hot and humid climates when they ought to be planting something else.  And, in general, I object to any new technology which will further drive up the cost of the game.  Somehow the game has managed to survive 500 years without Sub Air.

I agree....we have installed sub air mainly where they want to grow bent grass on courses in the humid South East....where the summer heat and excess moisture in the green can combine to stew the root zone.

I feel that if the grass on a green needs fans or subair for life support, then it's a poor choice to begin with....especially with the new and improved ultra dwarf Bermudas as options....and with even newer Paspalum varieties lurking on the horizon.

AMEN.....

[Chris Cupit]

OK, I'll take a shot at making someone angry

I recently re-built 20 greens to USGA specs (and yes, we put a sub-air system in).

Michael Riley was the architect and Medalist Golf Inc. was the construction company.  

I can assure you that our greens have more roll and contour that most anything within 90 miles.  The tie ins were a bitch and yes, in order to keep the "layers" at uniform depths it was a constant struggle.  Mike was on site every day except maybe 5 during the entire project!!

There were times when during the building of the greens or floating them or whatever, many of the interesting humps and bumps got "flattened" and we had to re-shape it--more probing, more time, more whatever and it was a pain in the ass.  But I have a great and unique product that was possible through great work by the architect and construction company.

We have had very little settling (most people would not notice any) and the green complexes tie in nicely.  Again, I attribute this to a great job by Medalist and a constant watch dog effort by Mike Riley.  On those small areas that are not "perfect", we have begun an extensive aerification and topdressing program that has already helped smooth away the small imperfections between fairway, collar and green.  I guess what I am saying is that USGA greens do not mean flat, uninteresting greens.

From a turf care persepective I have not met a super that advocates push up greens around Atlanta, GA--lots of GA red clay--not a great natural sub surface.  I am sure there are areas where push ups works great but not here.

FWIW here are some of the supers who have been on site--
My Head Super, Mark Hoban--2 time GA. Super of the Year, ABAC agronomy grad, interned under Palmer Maples and was at the only other club he had ever been associated with for 31 years before coming to my club.

His asst. Lucas Walters, Penn State agronomy grad whose prior experience included ANGC and Capital City Club in Atlanta--great young asst.

William Shirley, former super at my club, now super at Peachtree GC for the last decade or so.

Billy Fuller, former head super at ANGC, the "inspiration" for Billy Bunkers (yes we used his method for our bunkers) and a new entry as a golf course designer.  (I think he and Bob Cupp had worked together).

Anyway, all of these guys as well as Dr. Gil Landry (I think from ABAC) all agreed that a push up green would not be what they would do in this area.  

I think the USGA specs are a guideline and that each owner must look at their particular property when assessing how they want to spend their dollars.  Those who "oversimplify" and suggest that a particular method is THE answer or who suggest that everyone doing it some particular way have been "duped" or don't know any better and are just playing it safe, are (1) not being intellectually honest about the science and/or (2) most likely are not the ones with the dollars invested in this huge asset or lastly (3) are NOT the ones who have to take care of the course for the long term.

Another couple of interesting facts--I was asked to come to a break out sessions at the Atlanta meeting of ASGCA to talk about the economic justifications of renovations with two other owners.  It was a great experience and I am glad to have been part of it.  One point that the ASGCA was clear in was this--USGA built greens would last longer than non USGA greens!?  I hope they are correct but I do not know of research to back that statement up. If owners/clubs are being accused of being duped into needlessly spending more $$$ then the ASGCA is contributing to this!

The ASGCA has a guideline it publishes about the useful life of bunkers, tees, cart paths, greens, irrigation systems etc. and they were explicit in a Q & A that at least in our region, the USGA greens will last longer, all other factors being equal.

If they are being duped too, well....

Lastly, all science must be constantly "put to the test" and evaluated over and over.  I am certain Dr. Hurdzan will forget in the next five minutes more than I will ever know about agronomy but even his analysis is not without its detractors from time to time.

In the recent USGA Green Section Record, in an article entitled, "Rootzone Amendments for Putting Green Construction" by Dr. James Murphy here is a quote from page 8., "Advocates argue that accumulated organic matter "amends" the sand rootzone over time, therefore eliminating the need to amend the sand at the time of construction (Hurdzan, M.J. 2004.  Golf Greens: History, Design and Construction.  John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, N.J.) Research has proven this concept is flawed....."

My point is not to take a shot at Dr. Hurdzan but rather to point out that research and peer study and review of ones' colleagues findings is at the core of finding better ways to grow great grasses for golf.

Maybe Dr. Murphy missed something, maybe he's right on this particular point, whatever.  It is just not so simple as USGA greens are some plot by "the man" to make courses more expensive and USGA greens ruin he ability to create interesting greens--that's BS

USGA greens may or may not be what a course needs--it depends.  But thank goodness for the research and those who try to oversimplify something--shame on you .

[Pat Brockwell]

It is easy to complicate, but better to simplify.  "If it drains you can grow grass on it".  Brilliant!

[Chris Cupit]

Ah but things are not so simple

I was re-reading some C.S. Lewis and he was describing peoples' desire in general for "simple truths" when in fact there are none.  An apple for example, or a simple sunset may seem simple, beautiful and uncomplicated but underneath the surface, more things than one could possibly fathom are going on.

If you knew the molecular make up of the apple, how the tree had to act just right to produce its fruit, how the plant tissues behaved, etc. etc. etc. one would see that "the school boys' desire for simplicity" (Lewis not my words) should be abandoned as soon as one is old enough to know better

If only life were so simple......then would it be worth living

[Kalen Braley]

If only life were so simple......then would it be worth living

That reminds me of an old grump of a woman that I used to work with.  One morning she came in and one of us said "Good Morning, how are you?"

She shrugged her shoulders and huffed:
"Well I'm still alive aren't I?"

Now that my friends is a great optimistic outlook on life..  

As it pertains to USGA greens or not, I think its best summed up on another thread I read.  The gist of it was, whether the greens thrived or not was pretty much because of the person in charge of growing them.

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
As you say......I know of no one that would say to build push up greens in the SE or in any other area where the soil is a clay.
And as you say ...all of the supts you mention are very good and capable of growing grass as well as anyone in that area....I am not much on putting stock in the University guys though.....seen to much of their science over the years w/o much on the job experience....thus I will take the supts everytime and if it is a time when they agree with the scientist then good for them....
I NEVER SAY A GREEN IS USGA.....but here is the way we build most of our bentgrass greens in the SE.  We core an area 18inches deep for the green area and the fringe..we then place a herringbone pattern on 10 ft centers and place a plastic liner around the edges of the cored area.....we place at least 4 inches of 89 double washed peagravel in the core and rake to a level parallel to the future surface 14 inches above......if corrections are needed we do them here......we then place 14 inches of 85/15 or 90/10 root zone and probe it constantly..usually purchased from Bulk Ag in ATL....Now we take the outside area of the cavity after it is filled and blade off 4 inches.....the 4 inch area is then replaced with the same rootzone material out into the chipping areas and in the approach to the green....This gives us a finished green with a 4 ft wide collar made from a sand/mix rootzone.  
Some may call this a USGA green....I don't because I don't believe anyone has proven the perched water table theory and that is the basis for a USGA green.....I base my green construction on the theory that a good rootzone with proper drainage is the basis for a good green......if one is more comfortable with a "USGA" green in order to obtain this then so be it.....However I am of the opinion that all of the supts you mention can grow just as good a grass on the same rootzone they now have with good internal drainage and surface slope...(.as a matter of fact some guys are now using less depth in the rootzone of tiers and slopes in "USGA" greens today)....And if they have a course with "old style" greens that slope from back to front then they can grow it on that as well.  I am also of the opinion that the there are not any push up greens(using your definition of pushed up clay) existing in GA.  Most of the older courses may have had topsoil greens but they have had as many as 75 years of sand topdressing and they are basically a sand base green...you don't see much in the cup cuts other than sand...
..AND now with the new ultradawrfs the growers are saying you may be better on a high soil content green to help with dessication....
As for agreeing with Dr. Hurdzan or Dr Murphy....All Mike hurdzan is saying that the theory is flawed because in a matter of a few years there is enough organic in a sand green to do what is expected of the initial mix.....AND how long is a USGA green a USGA green?....does the organic slow down the perc rate to a rate that is below what the USGA recommends???
Supposedly a USGA green is consistent in watering and fertilzation....supposedly....
YOU STATE:
"I think the USGA specs are a guideline and that each owner must look at their particular property when assessing how they want to spend their dollars.  Those who "oversimplify" and suggest that a particular method is THE answer or who suggest that everyone doing it some particular way have been "duped" or don't know any better and are just playing it safe, are (1) not being intellectually honest about the science and/or (2) most likely are not the ones with the dollars invested in this huge asset or lastly (3) are NOT the ones who have to take care of the course for the long term."
 
Are you saying that spending this money gives you a better green?
Most of the "science" I have seen is opinion when it comes to these USGA greens....
I can name just as many supts withe qualifications of the ones you mention  (no problem with the ones you mention) that will say they can grow grass just as well with slope and the same rootzone....
ALSO....when it comes to spending money and longterm care.....I have never seen a supt build USGA greens on a course THAT HE WAS GOING TO OWN....
I HAVE seen ATL supts mention that a particular course's greens may not be as good or have problems because they were not built to USGA specs....
YOU ALSO STATE:

"The ASGCA has a guideline it publishes about the useful life of bunkers, tees, cart paths, greens, irrigation systems etc. and they were explicit in a Q & A that at least in our region, the USGA greens will last longer, all other factors being equal.

If they are being duped too, well...."

IT IS NOT A CASE OF THEM BEING DUPED....
The ASGCA is not a sanctioning body for Golf Architecture...they are a fraternity...nice guys..but a fraternity.  Speaking of Universities, science and the ASGCA in the same breath is no different than a University using a fratenity house for STD research.....will it be scientific???   There is no proof that a USGA green last longer than other greens....IMHO if a USGA green is shaped as many modern greens with flat areas...it may not last as long as a green with surface slope......because once the perc rate slows..it is done....

Chris,  at the end of the day I am sure the greens you have are great greens and the person you had design them and the person you have maintaining them are also good at what they do.....The cost of such construction is not feasible at many courses thru out the country....so I ask you...assuming the life of a USGA green is 20 years plus a year of downtime to rebuild it.....and you only had so much income over that period.....would you rather have a USGA green with a lesser supt or would you rather have your supt with a lesser green???  

There are more good courses out there with out USGA greens than there are with them.....IMHO it if a green has a good rootzone and drainage.....it will be the person maintaining them that makes the difference.....
Hope to play your place soon....
Mike

[Bill Warnick]

Mike,
I don't know the specs of the materials that you are using but you may have accidentally built quite a few USGA greens with your method of construction.  Do you test the materials that you use at a laboratory?

You may not "believe" in the perched water table for greens construction, but that is exactly what you have constructed by using four inches of gravel in the base and a sand mix on top. That comes from the USGA guidelines.

The purpose of the gravel is to create a perched water table!
You don't need it for drainage. Some of the best naturally draining sand courses don't have gravel under the soil mix. And for those built on clay, follow the specs of Dr. Mike Hurdzan and save yourself the cost of the gravel.

Dr. Hurdzan does not recommend a gravel layer under the soil mix and does not recommend adding organic amendments to
the sand. Pure sand. He has built hundreds of greens this way and continues to be successful.


Got to go mow mow mow roll roll roll.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,
I don't know the specs of the materials that you are using but you may have accidentally built quite a few USGA greens with your method of construction.  Do you test the materials that you use at a laboratory?

You may not "believe" in the perched water table for greens construction, but that is exactly what you have constructed by using four inches of gravel in the base and a sand mix on top. That comes from the USGA guidelines.

The purpose of the gravel is to create a perched water table!
You don't need it for drainage. Some of the best naturally draining sand courses don't have gravel under the soil mix. And for those built on clay, follow the specs of Dr. Mike Hurdzan and save yourself the cost of the gravel.

Dr. Hurdzan does not recommend a gravel layer under the soil mix and does not recommend adding organic amendments to
the sand. Pure sand. He has built hundreds of greens this way and continues to be successful.


Got to go mow mow mow roll roll roll.

Bill,
I use exactly the same mix as most so-called USGA greens around my area.....and probably build my greens the same .....
I think you have missed my point just a little.....I understand the gravel creating a perched water table...however if there is such a thing (and many are not sure there is on some excessive slopes) but the variance allowed in a USGA green for the rootzone is only around an inch or less ......THEREFORE if one has any area of his green that is over an inch in variance and it can be plus or minus THEN they don't have a USGA green.  You can use a staked grid or you can probe but there will be areas that don't measure...you just miss them or the probe did not feel the gravel on a particular probe.....PLUS...if it works why are there so many localized dry spots etc on internal mounding etc of "USGA" greens.....
With all due respect whoever you are....I don't think there is a green where the entire surface meets USGA specs....PLUS from the day you build it ...how long will it meet that spec.....B4 someone tells you it doesnt work because it no longer meets the spec.....JMO

[Chris Cupit]

would you rather have a USGA green with a lesser supt or would you rather have your supt with a lesser green???  

Mike

I'll take the lesser super with the better green--BECAUSE, I can always fire the super, but I am stuck with the green!

More to come

[Chris Cupit]

Chris,

Are you saying that spending this money gives you a better green?

I hope so  Nothing is certain of course but I will say that in Atlanta a green built with a perched water table even close to USGA specs will be superior to a push up GA clay green.  I am sure I could have saved some money and I am sure that what I did may not have been necessary in other areas of the country.  

But, as it was my money, I chose to follow the advice of expert supers with a long history in my area and thus we built what we did.  

The history of the club was one of subpar construction from the beginning.  Original greens built in 1973 were a complete failure and by 1979 after numerous lawsuits they were re-built--again the method was flawed at best and resulted in very inconsistent greens that struggled for 25 years until being blown up last year.  

I did have some excellent supers (including William Shirley now at Peachtree) during that time and the greens suffered because of the way they were built.  Even the best super couldn't create chicken salad out of chicken s***  I saw and paid the price for what I would call shortcuts in this area and I wasn't going to make that mistake again.  I am not saying that anything slightly different form a "USGA" is subpar.  And, based on your definition of a "USGA" green , maybe I don't even have them!

But, I do think there is enough research and experience out there that demonstrates the benefits of the "perched" water table approach of construction.  

ALSO....when it comes to spending money and longterm care.....I have never seen a supt build USGA greens on a course THAT HE WAS GOING TO OWN....

Can you give me an example in my area?  What super has built and owns his own course near me?  Are any of them in the private club market like me?

Mike, it seems that you are hesitant to say anything is a USGA green because there is a chance that if one inch of the green isn't precise, then the whole green is somehow disqualified as an USGA green.  Forget being a "perfect USGA green" whatever that means.  I am really talking about a layered perched water table that seems to be your preferred method of construction as well.

What super or what course has no gravel layer, no sand or rootzone mix?  The only one I can think of out west of me was were my asst. used to work--Dogwood Golf Course.  Push up greens topdressed over the last 30 years.  Lucas and I spoke today and I can assure you, even thirty years of topdressing did not result in a well drained, sand based green!  Lucas said he would probe and hit soil well within 3 inches.  

The ASGCA is not a sanctioning body for Golf Architecture...they are a fraternity...nice guys..but a fraternity.  Speaking of Universities, science and the ASGCA in the same breath is no different than a University using a fratenity house for STD research.....will it be scientific???   There is no proof that a USGA green last longer than other greens....IMHO if a USGA green is shaped as many modern greens with flat areas...it may not last as long as a green with surface slope......because once the perc rate slows..it is done....

I hear you but I also heard what the frat boys were saying in Atlanta.  One "problem" owners face is having one group/fraternity tell you they are the "experts" and to use one of "their" guys and on the other hand, others that tell you what a bunch of BS belonging to the fraternity is  BTW, while I did consider an ASGCA architect early in the process, my architect is not an ASGCA member.

There are more good courses out there with out USGA greens than there are with them.....

I think one reason the northeast, Ohio and Penn have the greatest courses is because they are located perfectly for growing cool season bents and fescues.  Many of the greats were built before the advent of USGA greens and yes, they do great.  I never said everyone should have a USGA green.  I have only said that to grow bent grass in Atlanta a perched water table method, like what the USGA reccomends, is a solid way to go.

In the transition zone where I am, your choice is bent or bermudagrass.  Neither is ideal.  Bermudagrass in Atlanta is either dormant or not actively growing most of the year.  Bent struggles in the heat and humidity of the summer.  

I went with bent for a lot of reasons.  1.  It is a better putting surface for most of the year  2.  My busy season is September through June--bent does very well at that time.  3.  Bermudagrass thrives June through early September and is not good in the late fall or early spring.  I'd rather have my best putting surface during my prime time.  (Originally, back in 1973 the greens were bermuda).  And 4.  I believe we are closer to having good bents that are heat tolerant while I don't see bermudagrass and its life cycle being able to be extended beyond the June 1 - September 30 time frame.  Also, all the people on the bermuda bandwagon in Atlanta need to remember we have not had a cold winter or the threat of winter kill in several years--that's a real issue bermuda has.

I do believe that bent is a better surface even though the mini verde and Champions as other ultra dwarf are excellent putting surfaces.  For cost considerations a CAlifornia green, modifed USGA green or push up may work out just great and I think the bermuda would have a better chance of doing well than the bent if those methods were used.

One last point I would like to make is this:  It seems as though supers bear the brunt and blame for alot and are in a no win situation at times.  When they ask for modern greens construction based on the best available science as well as the latest tools (fans, sub-air, walk mowing greens, of course more $$) we blame them for the cost explosion.  Who wouldn't ask for what they think are the best tools to do their job?

Supers today are well educated professionals and deserve to be treated as such.  And yet it seems like we often dismiss their profession and the science behind what they do.

We all want courses to be affordable and "blame" those higher end supers for driving up costs of the game when its the consumer who demands so much more from his golf "experience"..  

The other side of things occurs when a course loses its greens and it's not anything but the dumbass, "good ole boy" super who was pouring "beer or soda" on the greens in some ignorant attempt to grow grass.

Are the supers a bunch of ignorant hicks or professionals who deserve to have their science respected?  

My golf course is the most important asset of my club.  As much as I can afford to, I want the best possible construction methods based on science and experience and the best super, mechanic, staff and equipment I can afford.

Now get Chuck's and your asses over here to play

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
I can agree with most of what you say EXCEPT....there is no proof of a perched water table.....and there is no proof that a "USGA"  green last longer.... as you say I do not think it is possible to build over 100000 sq ft of layered green and not be off in some areas by more than one inch.....some estimate as much as 20% of surfaces.....
Also, I have never endorsed "push up clay greens.....
I sent you an email of a supt that pushes for soil greens....been at some pretty big places...
I definitely respect the supts as you say but the science you speak of has more than one way to skin that cat......
How many "USGA" greens are being redone inside 20 years this year in ATL?
I have a full day with Chuck tomorrow got to go to bed.....

[Steve Okula]

Chris,
I can agree with most of what you say EXCEPT....there is no proof of a perched water table.....

There's where you're wrong. There is an abundance of documented proof that a USGA or similar construction will perch a water table. It is soil and water physics, specifically capillary action. To oversimplify, water will adhere to a smaller soil particle with greater tension than it will to a larger particle. It has been proven to work over and over again. To say there is no proof there is a perched water table is like saying there is no proof of gravity.

[Mike_Young]

Chris,
I can agree with most of what you say EXCEPT....there is no proof of a perched water table.....

Steve,
I understand what you are saying re the physics of the water and how via capillary action it should work and.....BUT there are many slopes and mounded areas where it is not working....it is not remaining parallel to the gravel layer......some of the universities are even saying so......But

There's where you're wrong. There is an abundance of documented proof that a USGA or similar construction will perch a water table. It is soil and water physics, specifically capillary action. To oversimplify, water will adhere to a smaller soil particle with greater tension than it will to a larger particle. It has been proven to work over and over again. To say there is no proof there is a perched water table is like saying there is no proof of gravity.

[Chris Cupit]

Mike,

Thanks for the e-mail and I can appreciate how a day with CR would wipe out anyone

Sorry if I belabored the point but I know perched water tables exist and have existed forever in nature and I think they can be duplicated with reasonable accuracy on golf courses.

I understand what you mean when you say that it's damn near impossible to be a "true USGA" green and I understand how the lab tests and real world situations can vary...BUT...I don't think the search for better science in greens construction particualrly as it relates to creating a percvhed water table is "tilting at windmills" to the degree you think it may be

Lot's of ways to skin a cat for sure, but since I am a dog person let's find an efficient and consistent way to do it

JUST KIDDING everyone!  

[Forrest Richardson]

I do not believe the ASGCA Life Cycle Chart suggests that a USGA green will last longer than another type of green construction. It depends on the individual member, region and a host of other factors.

As I stated earlier, the USGA green specification is a guideline. There is simply no ideal specification that can be said to solve all conditions.

Personally, I do not think the USGA specification is a good idea in most of the locals we work in. Elements of it? Yes, but not the whole spec from top to bottom.

[Forrest Richardson]

ASGCA, a fraternity? Ummmmm.

I think that may be lessening the importance and reach of golf architecture's largest and most influential organization. Many years ago I think there was some validity to this description. However, in the past few decades ASGCA has grown to 170+ and we now include associates in offices and loads of independent designers. The requirements for membership are very strict and the process is very serious. I think that aspect, plus our many endeavors, significantly alters it from a "fraternity" to a professional organization.

[Chris Cupit]

I do not believe the ASGCA Life Cycle Chart suggests that a USGA green will last longer than another type of green construction. It depends on the individual member, region and a host of other factors.

As I stated earlier, the USGA green specification is a guideline. There is simply no ideal specification that can be said to solve all conditions.

Personally, I do not think the USGA specification is a good idea in most of the locals we work in. Elements of it? Yes, but not the whole spec from top to bottom.

In Atlanta there were a couple of the "fraternity" that spoke about a recent renovation.  The chart came up and if I remember there was a range of time for each item.  Maybe 15-30 years for greens??

Anyway, someone in the audience asked why the range and the answer was that due to construction methds (and of course maintenance practices) some would last longer.  I am certain that one of the guys said that USGA greens would last longer.

I think I understand better the notion that "one size doesn't fit all" and maybe a point I was aiming for (not very clearly) was that sometimes it seems as if there is a bias against technology or research that I think can sell the profession of the superintendants a little short at times.

BTW, the Fraternity Jackets have got to go

[Chris Cupit]

PS  As an owner I did look to the ASGCA as a valuable resource at the start of my renovation.  I think they are very committed to helping their members gain the tools and resources to help people like myself understand the myriad of issues facing course construction and that is a very, very good thing.

But, the jackets are ugly.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,

Sorry I missed you in Atlanta. I had to leave a day early.  Your post on USGA greens is about as rational as can be made.  

As to the "science behind USGA recommendations", they have always been based on extensive research, and have been modified many times since being introduced in 1968.  The most recent revisions occurred earlier this year and continue that trend.  In the words of Jim Moore, USGA Construction Education Director,

“The 2004 guidelines are the result of over 100 people worldwide evaluating all aspects of greens construction.  We are happy with the approach taken, and it incorporates both real world expertise of architects, contractors, and superintendents, and academic evaluation gleaned from turfgrass research over the last two years.”


As an architect, I recommend USGA greens, and then work hard with the superintendent on the project to get locally based, site specific materials.  For all the science that goes into the basic USGA green, I believe strongly that every course needs a site specific green construction method.  A superintendent who has been in a region a long time has done his own research, and has a “computer” in their head.  You can call it “feel” or “intuition,” but I think the superintendent with such experience should make the final call on minor tweaks to get his greens just right.  

As to the life cycle chart, when Tom Marzolf became the ASGCA President he developed that Life Cycle chart, based on his experience at Fazio.  No doubt, it had an ulterior motive of helping courses realize that remodeling was often necessary - at least in terms of infrastructure.  

He said, “Golf Courses to plan ahead for recurring infrastructure costs".  He noted the expected life cycle of various golf course components, which was converted to the handout now issued by ASGCA:

•   USGA Greens – 15-30 Years
•   Other Sand Based Greens – 15 Years
•   Bunker Sand – 5-7 Years
•   Irrigation System (Good Quality) 20-25 years
•   Irrigation System (Lower Quality) 15-20 Years
•   PVC Irrigation Pipe Under Pressure – 15-30 Years
•   Cart Paths (Asphalt) 5-10 Years
•   Cart Paths (Concrete) 15-30 Years (or longer)
•   Practice Range Tees – 5-10 Years
•   Tees – 15-20 Years
•   Major Drain Pipes (PVC) – 15 Years
•   Major Drain Pipes (Corrugated Metal) 15 Years
•   Bunker Drain Pipes - 5-10 Years
•   Mulch – 1-3 Years


I hate to say it, but I have been around long enough to see a few “completed life cycles.”  Yesterday was the 30th anniversary of my start as a golf course architect!

So, yes, the document (at least at one time) suggests USGA greens should last longer.  BTW, I have seen the USGA research that went into the 2004 changes, and there is some valid belief in that, and that the perched water table does speed up and even out drainage, which is the key element to longevity.

I have also learned that, because of rising maintenance standards – infrastructure repair and replacement usually means an infrastructure upgrade.  And I say this as one who constantly marvels at how much superintendents get out of typically limited resources.

As to the ASGCA being a fraternity, it is a professional society, which has fraternal aspects, of course, and also a goal of providing necessary information to its members and the golf world in areas of common interest and within the expertise of golf architects in general that might further the game.  

As to the jackets - I am proud to wear mine, even if ugly to some.  I think they are like White Castle burgers - so bad they are good!

[Forrest Richardson]

Chris — One day you might get over your uncomfortableness with ASGCA Ross Tartan Jackets. You might think of it as overcoming the apprehension to say "I love you" to a father, not be worried about what others think in a crowd, wearing a lavender shirt, etc.  When you consider that Mr. Ross was the patron saint of the ASGCA, it means a lot to those of us who have been accepted as members.

There are several well qualified golf designers who are not ASGCA members. My opinion (personal and professional) is that these guys or gals would benefit — and so would their clients — from the connections and associations that ASGCA facilitates. As we have seen in the past few years, many are now applying for membership — perhaps also bypassing any previous hang-ups about "belonging" or "membership" that may have been buzzing around in their heads.

For the record — USGA greens specifications are pretty much a written response with general conditions as their main attribute. The science is isolated to regions — it would be like saying Tylenol works for any type of headach. Untrue.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()