speaking of greens - does this still work?

[Peter Pallotta]

I enjoyed the thread about USGA greens. Tonight I was reading some articles on early American golf and came across a 1915 article on how to build greens. I've included only the section that lists the elements comprising the green's 6 layers.  I was hoping some who posted on the other thread could share their thoughts on this approach. To a novice amateur like me, it was surprising to read that the 'formula' for greens was so detailed by 1915. I've got to admit I'd assumed that they just 'pushed up' the greens on whatever (hopefully) sandy soil was there. Was this the 'USGA' green of its day?

Thanks
Peter      

A - Germinating layer, 3-16 inch thick, consisting of 12 parts shredded peat moss, 1 part powdered bone and proper amount of seeds.

B - Upper blanket layer, from 9-16 to 11-16 inches thick, consisting of 12 parts shredded peat moss (by volume), 6 parts powdered limestone (by volume) and 1 part powdered bone.

C - Lower blanket layer, ¾ inch thick, consisting of shredded peat moss (by volume) 12 parts, powdered limestone 21 parts, cow manure 5 parts, cracked bone (¼ inch size) 3 parts, powdered bone 1 part.

D and E are layers of different soils placed at an angle of 45 degrees one on top of the other: D is 3 inches thick and consists of 2 parts (by volume) of clay thoroughly mixed with 1 part cow manure. E is 1½ inches thick and consists of 8 parts fibrous peat from the surface of forest soil mixed with 1 part cow manure.

F is a drainage layer of broken stone 3 to 4 inches thick.

[Adam Clayman]

Interesting recipe.

I would think that the ingredients won't be the same but some of the concepts still live.

[Phil_the_Author]

Peter, who wrote the article?

[Jon Wiggett]

Peter,

if it worked back then, then it will still work today although you may find enviromental issues with the powdered bone bit.

[Marc Haring]

As a superintendent, that is scary. Looks like they just started with a couple of foot of thatch and added a unhealthy load of phosphate in the bone. Doesn't matter what seed they used, because it wouldn't grow.

If they built a green like that today with our playing numbers, that green would be dead in a few days and you'd have to wait a long time before the poa created some sort of grass cover!!!

[wsmorrison]

That sounds like the it is the method of making greens developed by Frederick W. Taylor.  Taylor was a Philadelphian well known in his day for his work on scientific management; time and efficiency analysis, standardization and other large-scale industrial management applications.  Taylor was also an avid golfer and had a patent on a putter and his green building method.

In his desire to develop better greens, he came up with a model and experimented on their effectiveness.  The greens were used on the old Sunnybrook GC and at Pine Valley where some of them (Tom Paul may know which ones, I believe the 1st) still exist today.  Taylor used hundreds of test plots and recognized the need for good seed of suitable grasses, a good medium for germinating the seeds, and a fertile soil that had a high water-holding capacity yet drained well.

His results indicated two diagonal layers (slants) that would aid water-holding and drainage beneath the seed germinating layer and the upper and lower blankets.  One of the slants consisted of three parts clay and one part cow manure (3" wide) and the other was chopped and decayed peat moss mixed with cow manure at a 9:1 ratio.  The slants were pre-mixed and made into slabs that were laid out with a depth of 12".  It must have been very difficult to construct.

His work was summarized in "Turf for Golf Courses" by Piper and Oakley after Taylor's death in 1915.  

[Peter Pallotta]

Philip,

Wayne has it right. It's Fred Taylor.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I don't know if I would try that today as Marc says it could be scary plus it seems more complicated than gravel and a 12 inch rootzone......
However, I got several IM's(6) from supts on the other thread saying they would rather have high soil greens than the USGA type.  One of these supts has been at several nationally high profile courses, including three in your town.  Another had been at a high profile course in your area and has his course in the south where he growns on a push up with 4 inches of sand.....he kept grass all summer when many of the "USGA" greens around did not.....
AGAIN, I am not a supt.....but IMHO it all comes down to the guy growing the grass.....WHILE I don't believe anyone can build more than 80% of their surfaces to USGA spec..I do think that some type of 12inch minimum 85/15 rootzone with drainage is probably the best for all....I still am not sure I can go for a parallel perched table though...JMO
Mike

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

I agree that Taylor's method is an example of how much in the dark these guys were in the 1910s and that experimentation was rampant to try to figure out how to grow and maintain turf for golf courses.  The work of Taylor, Flynn, Wilson, Harban, Piper and Oakley were instrumental in the development of the National and later USGA Green Section.  

I don't see how heavily contoured greens could use the Taylor method.  It must have been a difficult task to build greens to his specifications.  I may be wrong, but I think some of those greens still exist at Pine Valley.  I'll call Rick Christian and see what he says.

There were so many fundamental issues that needed to be studied and solutions developed that it took much of Hugh Wilson's time and hundreds of letters a year between himself and Piper and Oakley.  Fortunately, these letters were saved and are in the files of the USGA Green Section.

See you next week, Mike.  I'll call you later this morning.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents.

Wayne, I take it then that this type of green construction wasn't the 'standard' of the day, but just one of many early experiments on green/turf growing?

If so, I'm wondering what Taylor (and others) were using a precedents? I mean, what areas/subjects/practices in agronomy or agriculture that Taylor DID know about were the basis for the experiments on areas that he DIDN'T know about?  

Thanks
Peter

[Steve Okula]

D and E are layers of different soils placed at an angle of 45 degrees one on top of the other: D is 3 inches thick and consists of 2 parts (by volume) of clay thoroughly mixed with 1 part cow manure. E is 1½ inches thick and consists of 8 parts fibrous peat from the surface of forest soil mixed with 1 part cow manure.

F is a drainage layer of broken stone 3 to 4 inches thick.

Not that I know anyplace that ever tried it, but it seems doubtful that any drainage would get through 3 inches of clay mixed with cow manure. I can't even imagine how the mixing would be done. I'm really glad I wasn't there to work for this guy.

[Joe Hancock]

I don't know if someone already mentioned this, but the "recipe" was likely not intended to get anything but natural irrigation. That recipe would be a disaster with todays irrigation habits.

Joe

[Chris Cupit]

However, I got several IM's(6) from supts on the other thread saying they would rather have high soil greens than the USGA type.  One of these supts has been at several nationally high profile courses, including three in your town.  Another had been at a high profile course in your area and has his course in the south where he growns on a push up with 4 inches of sand.....he kept grass all summer when many of the "USGA" greens around did not.....

Mike,  

Thanks again for the e-mail but here is what I don't get--Those supers I mentioned who let's say used the "USGA specs" (at least as a guideline) are more than happy to say who they are and what club they work at.  William Shirley, Billy Fuller, Mark Esoda, Mark Hoban etc.....

I appreciate that not everyone feels that way but why aren't any of the 6 supers you allude to willing to say--"hey I think the USGA spec stuff is over rated.  I am so and so and I've been at such and such club for x number of years and here is how I did my greens?"  

It would seem that there would be benefits of an open discussion/discourse and it seems like those guys are "hiding"??!!  I know who you mentioned and their courses and I don't see why they wouldn't want people to know their courses and their successes (and challenges) with a process maybe a little different than the "text book" approach.

I will say I read today that Oakmont has never re-built their greens in their 103 year history!!  That's unreal!!  I'd say it's a great natural growing environment and a history of excellent turf care.







 

[Mike_Young]

However, I got several IM's(6) from supts on the other thread saying they would rather have high soil greens than the USGA type.  One of these supts has been at several nationally high profile courses, including three in your town.  Another had been at a high profile course in your area and has his course in the south where he growns on a push up with 4 inches of sand.....he kept grass all summer when many of the "USGA" greens around did not.....

Mike,  

Thanks again for the e-mail but here is what I don't get--Those supers I mentioned who let's say used the "USGA specs" (at least as a guideline) are more than happy to say who they are and what club they work at.  William Shirley, Billy Fuller, Mark Esoda, Mark Hoban etc.....

I appreciate that not everyone feels that way but why aren't any of the 6 supers you allude to willing to say--"hey I think the USGA spec stuff is over rated.  I am so and so and I've been at such and such club for x number of years and here is how I did my greens?"  

It would seem that there would be benefits of an open discussion/discourse and it seems like those guys are "hiding"??!!  I know who you mentioned and their courses and I don't see why they wouldn't want people to know their courses and their successes (and challenges) with a process maybe a little different than the "text book" approach.

I will say I read today that Oakmont has never re-built their greens in their 103 year history!!  That's unreal!!  I'd say it's a great natural growing environment and a history of excellent turf care.







 

Chris ,
I sent you an IM....
All of these guys would be glad to speak with you....I don't know how many of them EVER say anything on this site.....so it is not my right to speak their names here.....I also have never heard any of the guys you mention on here either....
You mention Oakmont....I don't think Merion has either.....And i think if you look at the Summer stress months in Philly and Atlanta...temps and humidity are very close.....
Also.....trivia..How many US Opens have been played on USGA greens as of last year....And what percentage of other USGA championships are played on USGA greens.....

[TEPaul]

Peter:

You wondered where Frederick Winslow Taylor came up with his green construction method. And yes, in a way it was the percursor to the USGA spec green.

That's a good question and I'd say right out of his own head.

The guy was amazing. He was obviously one of those pure inventor types who invented a lot of diverse things probably borne by a passion for problem solving. He made a ton of money in the process of numerous inventions too. He was a rich Philadelphia Quaker who had his own professional agronomist/gardener who was pretty well known around here for actually building those greens.

But it was his Scientic Management Method that really made Taylor world famous. That, by the way, is how most all management/employee relations work---it's a method of management/employee efficiency and the unions back then probably would've killed Taylor if they caught him.

Taylor's death in 1915 really got Hugh Wilson's attention as Wilson, Piper and Oakley, wanted Taylor's research and Wilson appealed to the executor of Taylor's estate to give it to them. This Taylor green construction research became part of the basis of collected research on agronomy and golf course construction and maintenance methods that Wilson and Piper and Oakley et al eventually turned into the USGA Green Section. Interestingly the Green Section was made a formal part of the USGA under the USGA presidency of Oakmont's W.C. Fownes.

Crump was going to turn all his greens into Taylor greens but he died too after only around six of them were done.

[Dan Herrmann]

OMG - It's THAT Taylor - the father of Taylorism?  

This may be the first GCA thread that speaks of a man who's work caused a number of riots!

[Chris Cupit]

Mike,

Sorry if you took the post the wrong way.  I can assure you, before I mention someone's name I make sure they are OK with it.  While those guys don't post on here, they are happy to be quoted as to their opinion on various turf care issue all the time.

Mark Hoban has been asked to speak to turf care students at Mich State, ABAC and other schools for example.

Anyway, the best courses in the country are without a doubt located in the northeast and it would be natural to see our national championship staged in that area. If I remember correctly, Merion had some serious turf care issues before the 2005 (?) US Amateur and had to close the course unexpectadely for a short period of time in an attempt to have the course in excellent condition for the  August championship.

Also, those courses selected to host the US Open go through 5-7 years of preparation for the championship (the course super coordinates and spends a decent amount of time with the agronomists from the USGA).  

While particular times of year may be similar, are you saying growing a cool season grass in Philly is similar to growing a cool season grass in Atlanta?

Again, sorry to be a pain  I really, really agree that USGA greens are an excellent "guideline" to start with and that each location and super must decide what would work best for their particular course.   So I guess we agree that you can have good greens (or excellent greens) without following the USGA recs to the "T" even if that were possible!  I was more disagreeing with the tone of some of the posts (not all yours) that seemed  to really be "poo pooing" anything the USGA does or reccomends.  They deserve some sh*t but the green section does some very valuable research.

Peace

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks again, gents.

"This Taylor green construction research became part of the basis of collected research on agronomy and golf course construction and maintenance methods that Wilson and Piper and Oakley et al eventually turned into the USGA Green Section...."

TE
Would you know if there was much 'cross-pollination' going on around this time, i.e. roughly from the time of Taylor's death to the creation of the USGA Green Section?

What I mean is, did the research/experiments taking place on the east coast under men like Taylor find their way out to the west coast, and to architects and agronomists working out there, and vice-versa? Taylor was obviously publishing his thoughts, but how 'applicable' did others working in the different climates/soils in, say, California, find them?

In other words, if at the time we took the 10-15 top people working in golf design and construction from across the United States, would they have been sharing information, comparing results, and/or using the same methods?

Or were there ‘parallel streams’ going on for a while until something – e.g. off Joe H’s point, the wider-spread use of irrigation and its affects on green construction – brought them closer together?

Did the creation of the USGA Green Section prove to be a pivotal turning point in this regard?  


Thanks
Peter    

[Chris Cupit]

Peter,

I was looking through my books and found "Turf for Golf Courses"  by Charles V. Piper and Russell A. Oakley.  Macmillion press, 1917!

Pretty interesting read for it being about grass!  

[Chris Cupit]

From Chapter II - Soils for Turf Grasses:

"The special soil requirements of the various turf grasses differ considerabley, but for the best results they all require a deep, fertile, MOISTURE HOLDING (my emphasis), yet well drained soil....For putting-greens every effort should be made to secure as nearly perfect soil conditions as possible before seeding...It is a serious error to seed before a satisfactory soil can be established, as this can never be entirely remedied later by any system of top-dressing."

I was feeling pretty cocky about things until:

"The moisture-holding capacity of the soil should be high.  This is best insured by a good content of clay and of vegetable matter"

Oh well, still a great read so far.

[Mike_Young]

From Chapter II - Soils for Turf Grasses:

"The special soil requirements of the various turf grasses differ considerabley, but for the best results they all require a deep, fertile, MOISTURE HOLDING (my emphasis), yet well drained soil....For putting-greens every effort should be made to secure as nearly perfect soil conditions as possible before seeding...It is a serious error to seed before a satisfactory soil can be established, as this can never be entirely remedied later by any system of top-dressing."

I was feeling pretty cocky about things until:

"The moisture-holding capacity of the soil should be high.  This is best insured by a good content of clay and of vegetable matter"

Oh well, still a great read so far.

As we have discussed earlier....we both agree on a green with a rootzone similar to what the USGA is saying.....and the greens I usually spec are the same as someone that mentions the words "USGA".....
BUT as the post above mentions "moisture holding".....that is where I think the difference comes in and I don't consider it the green as mch as the manager.....the way people water is the key to all of this.....and in the south a lot of guys water the ell out of USGA greens.....IMHO
PEACE. LOVE AND CHEMICAL WARFARE  (charles had the chemical warfare going yesterday if you know what I mean...and i refused to lower a window...really frustrated him...)

[Chris Cupit]

CR is worse than Saddam ever was re; the chemical warfare!  

Here's a Rymer story you may not have heard--traveling back to the hotel after the practice round in NC with the team and Charlie had decided to wear some old sneakers around all damn day without any socks and then he took the shoes off--his farting actually IMPROVED the stench of those damn shoes.

Anyway, it gets so bad Bill McDonald throws the shoes out the window--next day on the way back to the course Bill swears he sees a dead dog on the side of the road--with one of Chuck's shoes hanging out of its mouth.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

In 1915 "agronomy" was still in its infancy.

I think TEPaul detailed some of the problems at PV and NGLA.

Importing the game from the UK might have been easy from an architectural perspective, but, with the drastic differences in soil and climate in the U.S., agronomy was certainly a challenge, especially for the turn of the century and early 20th century golf courses.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - thanks.

This is what is interesting to me: that though agronomy was in its infancy, there were people like Taylor who (if the fact that some of the greens built by his method are still extant is any indication) figured out some wonderful solutions to the problems they were facing. But even then, as others have pointed out here, Taylor's 'solution' might mean that it would be difficult to build greens with much undulation in them; or was primarily aimed at ensuring that the greens didn't die of thirst in those pre-irrigation days.

So interest one for me is "how much of the design of some of the early green complexes was impacted by agronomy issues, and how did those issues differ in different climates"?

But let's say for the sake of argument that Taylor's formula for greens was flat-out a wonderful solution.  In those early infancy days, was this information being spread and shared widely, and/or were there enough "Taylors" around to understand these possible solutions, experiment with them, and add meaningfully to a process of ever-more sophisticated knowledge?  And if so, would someone like Max Behr, as just one example, be utilizing this "shared knowledge" while building Lakeside?

So interest two for me is "is there a baseline of knowledge that we can safely assume the great early designers all shared, irregardless of where in the country they were working, and is this basic knowledge/experience implicit in all their 'talk' (in books and articles) that has come down to us?

[edit: In other words, in order to understand what they're actually saying, can we assume what was implicit for them?]

I'm guessing that all this might be more complex than I think, not least because --as Bob Crosby has pointed out on other threads -- we can't forget the thousands of courses that were being built by amateurs around the country, sometimes with modest means and modest goals that failed right off the bat or have long since disappeared.  

But if I can put what I'm trying to learn in a nuthsell, I'd say: I would like to be able to make a more educated guess about what the great early designers actually 'meant' (i.e. what THEY THEMSELVES meant, given their "shared" context) when they talked about 'an excellent green' or a 'natural course'.

Peter