News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


tonyt

Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2006, 07:11:33 AM »
For an ignoramus like me, can somebody please explain the 101 in main characteristics of the California method and push-up method?

I'd have guessed push-up to be the mainstay determined by building up of the greensite, but I have no clue.

TEPaul

Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2006, 07:17:18 AM »
Tony:

A push-up green is just a big reamed out hole with some nearby fill thrown into it and a "California" green is just one where all the drainage is way over on the far left side of the green.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2006, 02:52:07 PM »
Pat:  A few years ago I would have agreed with your initial query but now I don't.  Instead, I believe it is the more subtle little breaks in a green which have disappeared due to USGA construction.

Building big contours within the green is possible to do on USGA greens if you are conscientious in following the subgrade, because it's easy to tell where the big contours are by probing through the greens mix as you build.  Most of my best severe greens are on non-USGA construction, but Stonewall's new course and Sebonack have some pretty severe greens and they are USGA spec.

However, what you miss in the USGA greens is the little bumpy stuff you find on many old greens.  It's hard to build those at subgrade level and even if you do, that inch or two may be lost when you're putting the gravel and sand layers on.  More importantly, to build a USGA green properly you should not add a little bump here or there at the end of the process, but on a non-USGA green there's no problem doing that, and that is how many of those contours have been made, whether it was by C.B. Macdonald or Bill Coore.  We've got them at Pacific Dunes and Barnbougle and Lost Dunes, but not at Sebonack.

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2006, 03:17:22 PM »
Tom,

Just curious, why was it decided that USGA spec was the way to go at Sebonack?
jeffmingay.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2006, 03:24:06 PM »
Jeff:  Both the superintendent and Jack Nicklaus wanted the USGA spec greens.  But more importantly, the owner and his engineer had already promised the town that we would line the greens and capture the subsurface drainage, so we couldn't just build them out of the native soil (which would have been great).

Jeff_Mingay

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2006, 03:55:38 PM »
Thanks for your response, Tom.

Seems strange to me (and you too, I presume) that Shinnecock, National and Southampton GC are neighbours, and the importance of capturing subsurface drainage at Sebonack was an issue.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 03:56:05 PM by Jeff_Mingay »
jeffmingay.com

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2006, 05:09:39 PM »
Jeff:  Both the superintendent and Jack Nicklaus wanted the USGA spec greens.  But more importantly, the owner and his engineer had already promised the town that we would line the greens and capture the subsurface drainage, so we couldn't just build them out of the native soil (which would have been great).

Tom,

How did that inhibit your creative efforts ?

Had the greens been push-ups, what would have been different ?

Why did the owner and his engineer make that commitment prior to consulting with you and Jack ?
[/color]

Jimbo

Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2006, 09:47:35 PM »
If the architect could envision the surrounds and tie-ins to the green the first time, or deduct from his fee the cost to re-work the complex, its tie-ines and the greens after his original design is built, the USGA Green can accomodate any design he comes up with.

Problem is, he's probably not there that day or that week.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2006, 09:51:38 PM by Jimbo »

Patrick_Mucci_Jr

Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2006, 12:34:27 AM »
Jimbo,

Do you feel that the 1st green at NGLA could be constructed with USGA specs ?

Could it have been constructed with USGA specs as they existed in 1991 ?

Ryan Crago

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The culprit ?
« Reply #34 on: April 20, 2006, 08:33:44 PM »
bumping this from a few days ago...

i was just searching some USGA green info, and felt there were a few unanswered questions here, specifically for Mr. Doak and Jimbo, that i'd be interested to hear the response to.