OK, I'll take a shot at making someone angry
![Cheesy :D](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/cheesy.gif)
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!
![Shocked :o](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/shocked.gif)
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
![Wink ;)](http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/Smileys/classic/wink.gif)
.