Let's not forget that Art Hills rebuilt a few greens - exactly how and how much I do not know- at least according the the old Open programs (and the new one) In my mind, if a course like Oakmont achieves sand greens the slow way by drill and fill, they have still modified their greens structure, even without modifiying the design, which of course, was the intent!
ryan,
Good question on better surface drainage prolonging green life and I would have to think so, whether or not we could ever meausre that - like on one course with one flat and one highly contoured green built at one time, with the former going bad first.
no point in arguing further, but again, I say that these things generally mirror my experience, if for no other reason than the cost pressures to underbuild a golf course are just too great. My current angst is cart paths- we are finding lots of 4' concrete paths with fiber mesh instead of rebars breaking up far before they should have. And yet, on new courses, finding no owner will pay the extra $0.75 sf for the rebar that will make them last. Part of the point of those guidelines is to start discussion with clubs about not repeating that past, and to build to higher standards in the first place.
Forrest,
I actually copied one of my own articles from Golf Course News, but recall cutting and pasting the ASGCA chart (before published) right in when preparing it. Its possible that they altered the final version - or that I added my own editorial comments, though, as I really don't recall. Short version, if anyone questions the 15-30 year spread on greens, then its my bad, for whatever reason, not ASGCA.
Tom D,
Everything can be viewed as self serving. But as you know, it is a small industry and I believe only a truly desparate for business would recommend unecessary changes for his own gain because word does get around soon enough. I have never been able to convince anyone to spend money they don't have, and I doubt many gca's can either.
As to what's changed, you are correct that increasing maintenance standards have been found to require better infrastructure. And, if that's the case, then only the top 2% of clubs that are seeking Augusta like maintenance would be worried about rebuilding periodically, and they can afford it. Again, while others might want to follow, they simply won't unless they have to because of money.
And, nothing in that chart presumes that any club should change "just because" I presume any club will take advantage of thourough soil tests, etc. that can give them a good idea of how bad their greens mix is. Lets remember, that many clubs that are 15 years old got built substandard in the first place, so each experience will be different. If it drains at 1' an hour, its not as likely to survive the next brutal summer. It may, but it may not.
so again, its a value judgment in so many cases - and the value is usually made by the club. In fact, I will bet as many gca consulting jobs have been agreed upon with the gca assuring them that major changes aren't necessary. When a few years later the greens croak, the gca commiserates "no one could have seen that coming" and then gets the job, rewarded for his patience!