Pros & Cons of rebuilding greens to USGA specs

[Patrick_Mucci]

et. al.,

Isn't it true that the USGA changed the specs for USGA greens subsequent to 1991 ?

Will the specs be changed again ?

From my limited experience, building a multi-layered USGA spec green that is highly contoured, would seem to take extra time and a great deal of craftmanship in getting each layer to be in perfect harmony with the layer beneath it, all the way down to the native soil.

If a USGA green is rebuilt, doesn't it have to be bath tubbed out, and the foundation reworked if the green is to be reconfigured ?

And, isn't it true that it's very difficult to add on to a USGA spec'd green beyond their construction boundaries ?

Lastly, why would anyone build a USGA spec'd green if the choice to build a push up was an equal option.

Kurt,

I'm fascinated by your reference to # 5 and # 14 at ANGC.
It's hard for me to imagine USGA spec greens being constructed to steep slopes and severe contours.

Gravity and the skill of the average field laborer would seem to be a serious impediment.  It's not like steep sloped and highly contoured USGA greens are commonplace.

Did you employ any special techniques on those steep slopes and contours ?

Tom Doak,

Wasn't it permiting issues that forced you to build to USGA spec at Sebonack ?

Removing any guns from your head.
What would you have built given free reign ?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Patrick,
All IMHO of course, but if the designer creates a good green detail for the subgrade construction, then the rest is just attention to detail. It's not really that hard to get the layers right, just takes time, patience and good attention to detail. What I see as the hardest part is getting the design "dead nuts" so the tie ins look natural.
Well contoured USGA greens can be built by a competent crew. It's the design details that need to be dead on if the green is going to look good and meet specs.

[Mike_Young]

Some of the previous posts seem to suggest that building a U.S.G.A. green is like paying extra to assure there will be future problems.

I have been managing U.S.G.A. greens off and on, on various golf courses around the world, for over twenty years, and I have yet to see any fail due to U.S.G.A. construction.

There is a case for building push-up greens in a lot of situations, and I agree that the U.S.G.A spec might well be over-rated and unnecessarily expensive. Push-ups are invariably easier and cheaper to build.

However, from personal experience, there is nothing inherently flawed in the U.S.G.A spec that would contribute to the failure of a properly managed green.

Steve,
I hope none of my post convey such a message.....I tend to agree with you.
BUT....I have seen USGA specifications/recommendations used as an excuse.....often.....and this was usually at prominent courses in our area.....it was often the "contractor did not build the layers correctly thus I have hotspots"..."the rootzone was no good so grass will not grow"......"the gravel layer has "shut down" so I have no drainage "AND after all of this the club goes back and does the same thing again....WHEN it was actually as you say....management.....
I would bet if the truth be known not much water ever reaches the internal drainage on a USGA type green where the slope surpasses 4%.....
I also think the biggest problem I have seen with USGA greens is the "hot spot" hyrophobic areas in some of the high spots and if the "perched water table theory" is correct....this should not happen.....
BUT some of the best , if not the best greens I have seen are of a good rootzone with surface drainage that moves, whether they be USGA, California or push up.....

[kurt bowman]

Pat,

No special methods are needed except for possibly probing the gravel a little more as transitions tend to lengthen. FYI ANGC's greens are USGA.

I think greens with more movement require more thought in the design, and shaping phase as it is easy to lose control of the ball, but construction wise it is no different. If you make it to Cabo you can have a look for yourself.

Cheers,

Kurt

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kurt,

When were ANGC's greens converted to USGA spec ?

Pre or post 1991 ?

It's hard to imagine that # 5, 6, and # 14 are USGA spec.

[Jeff Goldman]

Steve Smyers and Pat Andrews are building one new green for the South Course Project at Olympia Fields.  They took one look at the crummy clay soil and any notion of building a native soil push up green went out the window, with our greenkeeper's concurrence.  Are these folks incompetent or wrong to not be unalterably opposed to sand based or usga greens?  Is Tom Doak?  That's sort of what comes across from this thread -- a general and absolute opposition to USGA greens in favor of push up native soil greens regardless of local conditions.

[Jon Wiggett]

All:

I still don't understand the magic advantage of the perched water table.

Tom,

I believe its called 'litigation'. A not so short word that has caused a lot of expense paying for it or paying to avoid it.

[Mike_Young]

Steve Smyers and Pat Andrews are building one new green for the South Course Project at Olympia Fields.  They took one look at the crummy clay soil and any notion of building a native soil push up green went out the window, with our greenkeeper's concurrence.  Are these folks incompetent or wrong to not be unalterably opposed to sand based or usga greens?  Is Tom Doak?  That's sort of what comes across from this thread -- a general and absolute opposition to USGA greens in favor of push up native soil greens regardless of local conditions.

Jeff,
I am sure they did the right thing.
I think there is confusion here re the "USGA green".....
I build almost all of my greens with a herringbone drainage system,minimum  4 inches of gravel and a 14inch rootzone of somewhere between 90/10 and 85/15.  And we try to keep the top 2 layers paralell.....BUT WE NEVER SAY THE WORD USGA OR SPEC USGA.....because if you are off one inch you ARE NOT USGA.....
As Kurt Bowman mentions ANGC greens are USGA.......I know they have used a similar method but I think there are areas in some of the unpinnable slopes where the mix is less than 12 inches intentionally.....so can we call them USGA?  
If you tell a club USGA and there are areas that don't meet that spec....well.....
I don't use those words....JMHO.
Mike

Mike

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jeff,
Sand based greens are the way to go in almost every situation. The difference is sometimes your local sand is not quite USGA spec and the difference between spec sand and non-spec is sometimes very little yet the cost difference can be huge. And like Mike said in a non-USGA you might add an inch or take away one to get it all to tie in, but once you do that you’re no longer USGA. No one is suggesting you build a green out of crappy clay soils. It's more a feeling like the USGA specs are a bit rigid and are sometimes followed just because it's safer for all involved but not always better from an agronomic standpoint.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The original intent of USGA research was to find a method to build greens using local sands to build a practical, affordable green.

As they did more research, people started adhering to the "recommendations" ever more closely.  Then, with more research, they get tweaked some more.  Now, as mentioned, everyone seems to be afraid to vary at all from USGA specs, although Mike Hurdzan and a few others have led us to alternates (like California)

In 1968, when USGA greens debuted, irrigation and fertilizers had progressed far enough to be able to replace those agronomic needs, so sand made the most sense as a base because compaction was the biggest issue left.  It still does, even when you don't follow recommendations to a tee.

Quite simply, sand compacts less than soil (originally they thought it wouldn't compact at all, eliminating the need to aerify, although that hasn't panned out) and compaction is literally a green killer.  Most soils compact too much under the foot traffic that greens get, and short turf would be nearly impossible.  (key word, nearly, esp. on heavy play courses)

I always use sand based green, but look for performance characteristics, as originally intended, and try to use local sands and/or California greens to keep costs down, rather than always follow USGA specs.  

I have seen the USGA research, and lo and behold, the gravel layer actually does speed drainage and even it out, vs. pure sand greens, which is always nice, but it is expensive.  
Another issue is "calcarious" sands which most agronomists don't recommend.  However, the biggest issue is those kinds of sands can tie up fertilizers.  Not good, but we have to balance that out against initial costs.

[kurt bowman]

Pat,

It is my understanding that all greens at ANGC now have the sub-air vacuum system installed which would indicate that they all are USGA specs. I interned there in 1994, and during the summer we re-built greens 3,4 and 17 to USGA specs. At that time we installed the sub-air in green 13 which was the first there to have it, and it was remarkable how well that green made it through the hot summer compared to the others.

Kurt


Tommy,

I did not use tequila, but the guys building the greens may have. Come to Cabo and see for yourself. I think you will like the greens, but give me grief about having too many catch basins. LOL!! I have good reasons.

[Tim Copeland]

Its easy to have good greens when you can close and cover them all summer.  All courses can not do this.  ANGC is not a good example at all.  All Greens committees compare themselves to ANGC....but they dont have the budget to back up the improvements needed to compete

[Joel_Stewart]

How much are we talking about in costs to build a USGA green?

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much are we talking about in costs to build a USGA green?

From scratch, or with removing existing greens and rebuilding to USGA specs ?

[Joel_Stewart]

Removing existing greens and rebuilding to USGA specs.

[Forrest Richardson]

The cost of any green is largely dependent on the cost of the greensmix. Sand can vary from $5 per ton to $100 per ton. A green may have as much as 200 or more tons of sand mix. In Utah our greens sand is running about $60 per ton because it comes from a quarry in Idaho — unless we find an alternative source that is acceptable to the greenkeeper and me.

[RT]

...plus the cost of the gravel, and if needed the blinding layer between the gravel and sand rootzone.

[Forrest Richardson]

Yes, gravel. But that is typically never a huge cost, nor hard to locate. Gravel is a fairly common spec and consistency. And, since it is widespread in construction use, rarely expensive. It also represents a small tonnage compared to sand.

Sand is a tricky spec. For every 10 words written about gravel you will find thousands written about sand in golf use.

[Tom_Doak]

Sorry, I left this thread a while ago and hadn't looked back.

I never meant to imply (and don't think I did imply) that USGA greens construction is a flawed method.  I don't understand the advantage of a perched water table in most situations, so I don't understand why a golf course being built on good materials would even consider the more expensive USGA construction method.  But there are a lot of courses that aren't built on good materials, and in those cases, we build USGA greens or some derivative of them despite the hassle.

Pat:  At Sebonack, it was mandated by the permits that we had to capture all the drainage water which went through the profile of the green.  This could have been done without USGA construction and just using the native sand for the mix, but the golf course superintendent (with the USGA Green Section rep bending his ear) was uncomfortable with that approach, and Jack Nicklaus didn't understand why we would build a green that wasn't the approved USGA method.  (Jack's been in lawsuits about greens construction before, so I understand his reluctance.)  I just thought it was a waste of the client's money, but the client decided to spend the money so everybody was comfortable, and I couldn't argue with that -- because if I did, and they ever had a problem with the greens, no matter why it would be MY fault.

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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Thanks for the response, it was interesting.

Lawsuits over green construction is also interesting.

In light of that legal environment, would it ever make sense to present both methods to the developer, list the pros and cons of both and let him choose ?

Wouldn't that remove you from the litigation cross hairs ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Doak,

Thanks for the response, it was interesting.

Lawsuits over green construction is also interesting.

In light of that legal environment, would it ever make sense to present both methods to the developer, list the pros and cons of both and let him choose ?

Wouldn't that remove you from the litigation cross hairs ?

Pat,

In fact, most of us use contracts that say that we don't guarantee performance of the greens, and that is a direct result of lawsuits.  All I guarantee is that for whatever type of green I specify, that I will explain the relative advantages and use a qualified lab to make sure that we meet whatever spec we do settle on.

That said, I believe that an Owner who felt "wronged" by dead greens would sue anyway and we would at the least face the cost of defending ourselves.

[Mike_Young]

Tom Doak,

Thanks for the response, it was interesting.

Lawsuits over green construction is also interesting.

In light of that legal environment, would it ever make sense to present both methods to the developer, list the pros and cons of both and let him choose ?

Wouldn't that remove you from the litigation cross hairs ?

Pat,
I do about the same thiong as Jeff except I never mention the word "USGA" anywhere.....
Also...twice I have had an owner ask me to look at his "bad" USGA greens because he was "going to sue someone"......I refused to look at them....but did talk to one of the supts....it was amazing how good those same greens are today with a different supt.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff & Mike,

Don't most newly constructed greens fail because the club or GC purchased inferior materials, whether they be seed mix or gravel, and/or construction mistakes by the GC or Sub ?

In thinking about this, I can't see how a green, properly constructed with quality material can fail, can you ?

[Mike_Young]

Jeff & Mike,

Don't most newly constructed greens fail because the club or GC purchased inferior materials, whether they be seed mix or gravel, and/or construction mistakes by the GC or Sub ?

In thinking about this, I can't see how a green, properly constructed with quality material can fail, can you ?

Pat,
If a Jacobsen mower is given to a golf mechanic and he is a toro man...the Jake will never be as good as the toro......
Same for greens construction....I say it is 75% the person growing the grass and 25% construction of most greens that are considered bad....
NOW...dont all supts get in an uproar...you know what I am saying....and you also know how many guys that have been comfortable growing on pushups end up losing the job once they get the USGA greens they desired......I would say as long as the green is draining, since it is built in a cavity, then someone can grow grass on it.....

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Why do greens fail?  Sadly, that is what the "discovery" process in the lawsuit is for

What is an inferior material?  In the most infamous lawsuit I can recall, the owner actually had pretty good greens, but the perc rate was 5.9" per hour and the USGA spec calls for a minimum of 6.  He withheld the payment from the Contractor based on its missing of the spec, even though a USGA rep testified that in that particular desert climate, a lower perc rate might have even been a good thing for the turf.  The Contractor went broke for no good reason.

The USGA kept records from their site agonomy site visits, and the failure rates of greens (existing, not new) in any given year was about 2% whether the greens were push ups, USGA or other.  That suggests that tough climate in a year is more to blame than the chosen soil structure for greens failures.