[Mike_Young]

We have often discussed the merits of USGA greens on this site and never reached a conclusion whther they are a better solution....thats ok.....my question here is:  How many older courses have been compromised or "messsed up" because a committee decided the greens needed to be replaced with USGA greens.....for example....over 1000 trucks of sand to be delivered, the entire green complex altered or removed and begun again.....all because it has to be better because it cost more.....in the south as clubs go to the newer ultradwarfs, it is not needed at all.....it has to happen often IMHO

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

My experience is that old clubs do a lot of soil tests before deciding the "soil has worn out" and converting to USGA greens.  Committees just don't decide for no reason, or to keep up with the Jones', etc.  If greens soil has gotten to the point where it drains only 1-2" per hour, then often the soil is replaced with a sand based green.  If its salvageable, they first try to aerate, topdress, etc. to keep the structure.

To answer your question specifically, I don't know how many have been messed up. Those that have converted often decry the changes early, mostly because its different than what they had and many people hate change.  But over time, the brouhaha wears down and they enjoy the new greens in most cases.

[Joe Hancock]

Worn out dirt.....one of my favorite sayings. Of course, this only happens on a golf course. It doesn't happen anywhere else I know of. Are there any golf organizations that promote such a notion?

On the other hand, soil structures do change, and  if it's a natural process it usually is for the better. It's when man adds a lot of things to the mix that it screws things up; traffic, fertilizers and pesticides that affect micro-organisms, irrigation, and of course more irrigation.....did I mention irrigation?

I'll ask again....are there any golf organizations that promote the notion that dirt gets worn out?

Sorry Mike...I got sidetracked...what was the original question?

Joe

[Joel_Stewart]

Interesting question because there is a historic course in California that is about to do it.  They didn't consult an agronomist because the super didn't want to hear a possible contrary opionion and the architect they hired hasn't  done any historic renovations, has worked entirely in clay and only knows how to build USGA spec so wasn't comfortable with push ups. 

The board and green committee take their word for gospel  so we'll see how it turns out.  The main selling point is that they can keep the poa out of the bent which will also keep the nemitode out.  I don't think its scientifically possible to keep the poa out, especially in a damp cool environment. 

Whats amazing is the super has said that even if the poa comes back, he can roll off the top layer and roll back a pure layer of bent.  Is this possible?

[Dave Givnish]

http://www.grounds-mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_controlling_poa_annua/

Controlling poa spread appears to be quite difficult.  I wonder if the super is better off selling the members on a program to aggressively aerify the existing greens over a three to five year period.

We have 45-year old pushup bent greens.  We are now on about year 3 of this program.  The poa is still there.  However, I think that the surface it covers is considerably less than then when we started.

The cost has got to be much lower to take this approach, and we were out of play for only limited periods.  How long do USGA greens last before they have to be re-done, BTW?  Is somewhere between 10 and 15 years accurate?

[James Bennett]

The main selling point is that they can keep the poa out of the bent which will also keep the nemitode out.  I don't think its scientifically possible to keep the poa out, especially in a damp cool environment. 

Whats amazing is the super has said that even if the poa comes back, he can roll off the top layer and roll back a pure layer of bent.  Is this possible?

Joel

Metropolitan (in Melbourne) have used that method every 8 years or so to give a fresh 'skin' to their greens.  It is a quite quick turnaround.  They didn't undertake as much periodic greens renovation preferring this method for annual play (this was five years ago - their practices may have changed).

However, these greens do not have the the amount of shade and limited air movement that I fear you may be talking about.  They will almost certainly have a higher moisture content and less sunshine than the Melbourne ones.  I expect every pure layer of bent relaid will have a short half-life, and that the club might become expert in rolling back pure layers of bent in a very short time.  I hope I am wrong.

James B

[cary lichtenstein]

Planting the new ulta dwarfs at 10+ speeds requires changing the contours and results in greens with less dramatic contours

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Mike,

I've seen clubs redesign/rebuild an old green to USGA specs.

Invariably the green plays differently and probably requires unique agronomic applications versus the other greens.

I've never understood why a club would insert a USGA green or two or three or more, amidst the great majority of their old greens, unless, it was their intent to eventually convert all of the old greens to USGA greens.

Logic would seem to indicate, that if the old green lasted for about 60-80+ years, a rebuilt old type green should last that long as well.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

if the soil is tired it is probably either not being maintained properly or over played for the maintenance. There are few advantages to USGA specs outside their correct climate. Jeff hit on the most important point which is percolation rate. Many clubs changing to usga do so without looking into the problems properly. My experience is that with the following you can often improve the greens without a full rebuild.

1. Remove intruding trees which will improve sunlight and air movement.
2. Prevent water from off the green from surface flowing on to it.
3. Improve the quality of the green and just as importantly the surroundings.
4. Only cut with hand mowers and not to low.
5. Light sandings say every 7 to 10 days.
6. Aerate weekly through spiking, slicing, slitting, piano wires and light verticuts (just one a week not all)

Joel,

I have never seen a method of getting rid of poa completely unless the climate was suitable. On the otherside why would you want a pure stand. A good mix of different grasses is probably better.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Mike I would enjoy keeping this in the south to the extend possible. You know how many green comm and supers use the usga guys to justify whatever.

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,
In your post above you mention that committees don't decide to change for no reason or to keep up with the Jones.  I THINK they do in some cases.  Some clubs do it just to keep up with the Jones.  Some committees are so simple that just knowing it cost more permits them to state that USGA greens are better.   Committee mentality is really hurting a lot of clubs  IMHO.  As one guy told me " you don't understand....we can't afford to not do it because we are run by committee and cannot afford to be wrong yet one of your private developers can do as he pleases"  All of this based on the thinking that higher cost makes t the right solution.

My problem is mainly in the South where people are going to the new Ultradwarfs.  I don't see where the USGA green offers enough to be worth the cost.  And even the UltraDwarf companies are suggesting the mix be close to 50/50 in order to have a higher soil content.  I just saw an example where several of the Ultradwarf companies told a course that USGA green  was not needed but the club wanted an "expert" to tell them what to do ...SO.........they hired the USGA rep to come in and tell them that Ultradwarfs were the coming thing but you needed USGA greens.....While they were at it they should have had the Toro rep come in and tell them why they needed Toro mowers and how bad the Jakes would perform.

As Pat says above there are clubs that have done this and made it work....and I think there are situations where it is needed  BUT...so many clubs do not realize what must go on in order to put USGA greens on their course. 

In the south today one can use a no-till method to replace bentgrass greens with the new Ultradwarfs at a cost of about 60 cents per sq ft. and 8 weeks down time.  Now if you need to extend the green back out to its original perimeter you may spend another $50,000 and the same company proposed they could place a 4 inch mix that was comparable to the existing soil for another $90,000.  ( this is for 105,000 sq ft)......this type of replacement is acceptable because the new ultradwarfs don't need near the percolation of the bents in the same climate.  The existing soil mixture is actually better than a proposed USGA mix.....   AUSGA green would be over 6 dollars per sq ft. and have you down for at least 4 months.

So why would anyone in the South using Ultradwarf build USGA greens if they have an old green with 80 years of topdressing and conditions that can grow bermuda? 
REASONS:
1. Committees that are more concerned with what their friends clubs will say if they don't do the same as they did.
2.  Supts that are afraid of change and have never had USGA greens but have always heard how they were the answer...all the time forgetting how many of their peers lost their jobs once they got the USGA green after having the old push ups for years.
3.  The contractor tell thems that he would only build USGA greens...probably at a cost of at least an extra $600,000.  DAH.....why would he say this???.....
4.  The USGA representative tells them to go that way....Hmm....
5.  They have the mistaken opinion that their greens will be much much much better because the green cost so much more.

I saw an agronomist with one of the Ultradwarf companies ask a supt that was pushing for bent and new USGA greens the following question in front of his green chair......"how much improvement can you expect for your club in the conditions of your bentgrass if they give you USGA greens vs the pushups you now have"......His answer..."probably no more than 10%"......so why would you spend the money........

I am not a supt but I know when smoke is being blown and I smell it with some of this recent talk regarding USGA greens and UltraDwarfs.....
It is a case of one side trying to make the other side seem wrong because something cost much less....IMHO

[David Stamm]

Mike,

   I think it depends on the individual course. Does it matter if a Torrey Pines has USGA greens? Probably not from an interest standpoint because they were never that intricate to begin with. Also, how many chefs have been in the kitchen over the years and altered the original greens? In other words, have they been tinkered with so much that it doesn't matter anyway?

[Paul_Turner]

It seems to be a new craze in Britain....venerable clubs proudly anouncing they have new USGA spec greens.

[Joshua Pettit]

I don't think its scientifically possible to keep the poa out, especially in a damp cool environment. 

I respectfully disagree. 

I would recommend to anyone interested in this matter to read "Practical Greenkeeping" by Jim Arthur.  You will surely learn a few things from his most interesting insight.

By the way Joel, can you reveal which course you were referring to?

[Kevin_Reilly]

Joel is referring to a course in San Francisco that is not Harding, SFGC, Lincoln Park, Golden Gate, or Gleneagles.

[James Bennett]

Kevin

I thought it might be a club near Athens, Greece!  Well, tradition-wise  anyway.  They should play a special event there every four years.

James B

[Forrest Richardson]

Here are some interesting facts:

Arthur Jack Snyder built hundreds of 100% sand greens from 1958 through 1995 — NONE FAILED. I have visited the extremes, the bad, the ugly and the neglected — NOT ONE HAS FAILED.

On the other hand, in the same locales and the same era — and even decades later — MANY GREENS HAVE FAILED that were built by others and with USGA specifications. Ventana Canyon and Legend Trail are two such examples. At Legend Trail (North Scottsdale) we are currently helping to rebuild mid-1990s greens that were built with loads of organic content and USGA profiles. Why? Because the Owner and Greenkeeper felt they had to do so (build to USGA specifications)...unfortunately, it was a huge mistake and now is costing about $ 1/2 million dollars.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

Through this past Pennsylvania winter I've been playing nothing but ancient "push-up" greens, which includes those at Merion West (circa 1914), Cobb's Creek (circa 1916), and Reading (circa 1923).  We've had a strange winter with lots of precipitation, and yet the courses have all remained open all winter due to a lack of snowfall.

To say they've all been in excellent condition is an understatement.

On the other hand, I've played any number of new USGA greens on older courses, such as those replacing the originals on Alex Findlay's "Limekiln GC" over the past few years that seem, at least to these uneducated eyes, to require more water, seem to be almost always soft and squishy, and where the grass seems thin and shallow.   

This is not a scientific analysis by any stretch, but simply evidentiary opinion based on observation.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Young,

I guess its a matter of numbers.  I know some do go for the USGA greens, as you suggest, and possibly for the reasons you suggest.  Many more don't, mostly for cost and fear of doing exactly what you say - tearing it up for no good reason.

BTW, I have done no till greens as well as all forms of sand greens, USGA and other. No Till did get popular here about the same time the ultra dwarfs came in.  However, that means we have only a 7-10 year window and no long term data to see how they perform, while USGA greens are pretty well proven.  Time will tell if No Till greens last 13-20 years as USGA do.  I do know of 30year old USGA greens dug up and still in good shape, at least below the thatch layer.

So, like you say, it varies.  But, just as I don't think every course torn up in the 50"s-80's was done so willy nilly by committees hell bent on ruining good architecture, I don't believe the % of greens torn up for any agronomic reason are done so without some careful study. 

Now, I do agree that the person doing the study might influence that decision.  If you and I and a USGA rep consulted at the same club, we might get recommendations for no till, California, and USGA greens.  We all get paid for our experience and recommendations, and when in doubt, go with what we have had the most sucess with.  At least you and I are totally independent.  For that matter, while a USGA guy might be emotionally invested in a USGA green, he doesn't make a dime on them.

For that matter, while USGA greens cost a lot more than No Till, I am not sure a contractor couldn't be more profitable with the cheaper greens, since all the cost goes to his labor, and the cost difference is really just a pass through on material costs by the Contractor to Owner.  And, the more complicated the project, with hauling in materials, testing, etc. the more things can go wrong for the Contractor.

[Jon Wiggett]

I don't think its scientifically possible to keep the poa out, especially in a damp cool environment. 

I respectfully disagree. 

I would recommend to anyone interested in this matter to read "Practical Greenkeeping" by Jim Arthur.  You will surely learn a few things from his most interesting insight.

By the way Joel, can you reveal which course you were referring to?

Joel,

'Practical Greenkeeping' is a great book and a MUST read anybody remotely interested in the subject it does not claim to be produce a poa free green but it help to keep poa down to a level where it is more of a help than a hindrance.

Mike,

you miss the most important part of why clubs and especially contractors go USGA which is 'BLAME'. It is the standard which has been set in the industry by which as long as you can prove that you have built to it you will never lose a case against you if things go wrong. The strange thing about USGA build is the following:

Natures answer to drought is deep rooting. The perched water table creates a situation where the roots won't go below the rootzone which in turn is only usually max 10" due costs. This leaves the entire root system in an area whereit is suseptable to drying out. The answer to this is to irrigate but irrigation is no where near as good as natural rainfall and usually done with water that is far too cold for the ground conditions causing the grass to slow its growth.

Secondly, by there own admission the pure sand rootzone is too sterile an enviroment for growing grass and is incapable of developing a sufficient micro-bio system even over a period of years. It does suffer from 'tired soil syndrome' and if I remember correctly is recommended to be replaced (dug up) after 20 or so years. The recommended additive peat, is neither the best organic substitute nor is it envirmentally acceptable. The only reason why it was chosen over the far better suited soil is that it is cheaper to test and more consistent. The USGA is now looking for ways to be able to incorperate more subtable organic materials into the mix.

Whilst it is possible to maintain excellent putting surfaces on USGA you need the correct tools. Turn down the water allowance or remove chemical use and your in for trouble.

To combat drought I prefer the roots to go deep and drainage should be atleast 3 foot down to ensure that water really below the root system befor it is drained. I also want my surrounding turf to be of the same standard as the green. Many deseases start in the surrounds and spread to the green. Finally if I want F&F then I want them every where and not just on the greens but USGA if not extended into the fairway and surrounds area means that I will have two vastly different situtions making a consistant surface nigh on impossible.

Lastly, it make no difference how good the build is if the greenkeeping is not correct then the result will be poor playing conditions. On the otherside good greenkeeping will make a decent playing surface in less than ideal situations.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()