Will push up greens make a comeback ?

[John Moore II]

Perhaps the mountain example was not the best. How many courses have been built in Florida on less than great soil though?

In Southeast Florida, probably every course built west of the Turnpike.

Glad we are on the same page here. Thats pretty much what I had in mind

I would say a great many. And with very low water tables preventing proper drainage. I am not sure why you would pick a poor site.

Chances are the site was primarily picked for residential development with the golf course being an amenity.

And, don't ever forget a primary reason, COST

Indeed they were picked as residential developments and used the land available because of its lower cost. But, the golf course is still there and built on less than great land. Given the courses we are talking about here (just name any west of the turnpike, we're not talking about Jupiter Hills or Seminole. More like PGA National or Ibis) can we say the majority of them have Spec greens? I would think so.

I don't understand why the sites were picked for Old Works, Liberty National and other land reclamation courses.

Liberty and Bayonne seemed to make sense in terms of proximity to dense population centers and relative acquisition costs.

Correct. But without the massive financial backing they have, they would have have never existed. I know this is not the primary goal, but I wonder if either will ever turn a profit, given the cost to construct

But they seemed to have worked out well (likely with USGA Spec greens)


Bayonne is a marvel.
From a constant elevation of 10 ASL to what exists now is something to see.  However, a good deal of the imported soil, either 7 or 14 million cubic yards, wasn't the most desirable soil to grow grass on.  I'm not familiar with the specific green specs, but, I can find out what they were.

I agree, Bayonne, from pictures, I have never played it, is something to behold for sure. You don't have to look up the exact green specifications. We can likely agree that they are NOT push-up greens consructed from either the soil that was on site originally (which was toxic if I recall) or the soil that was pumped in to construct the course.

But I think what we can see is that often times golf courses are constructed where the course itself is not the primary consideration (certainly Bayonne, Liberty National, or Old Works don't fit that definition). These courses are built on less than ideal sites and in these situations, Spec greens are likely the only way to go in order for the greens to be in the shape that the customers will expect.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:


Ooooh My God, look at that post #87 of yours!! That is impressive and contains an interesting amount of detail. But Pat, did I not tell you yesterday both on here and on the phone not to wade out of the shallow, kid's end of the pool on some of these threads?

All that "river rock" layer and the layer like 12 inches of popcorn where disease is likely to form is some really detailed and sort of deep-water wading on your part.

I'm impressed, at least by your effort; but look, Pat, be careful; you're dealing with some of the big-boys on here now on this kind of subject who are into this and do it for a business and livelihood so do us all favor and listen carefully to their responses and consider them very carefully and try not to play the part of the little short-pants petty arguer this time---OK?

Savy, Pat?

[TEPaul]

Guys, this is just a fantastic thread. Keep it going and keep it on course and on point!

Pat, as Marissa Tomei said to Pesci (My Cousin Vinnie)----"You're out thayh, you're arguin'---I think you're gonna do great----as long as you don't fuck up again! 

[Bryan Bergner]

Pat,

Yes, I have access to a dictionary.

I just wanted you to elaborate on that statement

[Ian Larson]

       I think Patricks example with the popcorn river rock and what may or may not have went wrong with that project is a good example of how

easily a USGA spec method can get a bad reputation. In Patricks defense the specifications they followed were probably the specifications being

recommended by the USGA at that time. What year was it Patrick?

       Of course clubs will follow the USGA's recommendation. But thats not to say that the model they specified at that time was probably

successful. The main objective with a modified green design is to utilize the gravel layer around the pipe and the bottom 6" of the profile,

while using a sand layer that will "bridge" over the gravel which means that it wont just slide into the gravel layer contaminating it and

clogging everything up.

        In the beginning the USGA used a "choker layer" which was used to "bridge" the greens mix over the gravel layer. The choker layer

was sized to be slightly smaller than the particle size of the gravel and slightly larger than the greens mix, while at the same time allowing

adequate drainage into the gravel layer.

         Where Patricks project may have went wrong was obviously choosing to use the cheaper gravel. I cant speak for what was available

around the Philly area back then, but I can say that when I was construction foreman for Empire Golf we had no problem getting

7/16" washed pea gravel for bunker and greens drainage. Its slightly angular but it wasnt uber-angular to where it resembled popcorn and

had nooks and crannies in it.

          I am pretty confident a USGA agronomist didnt spec what Pats club used, the river rock was cheaper and readily available. If this was

the case, they should have postponed the project until they could afford the extra $5 - $10,000 extra to get the highest quality

materials. I dont know Pats club or if the greens were a success or not. But I do know that if they werent successful and it was attributed to

the USGA design (that went out of spec), it was a poor choice to save extra money in the beginning of the greens life. Especially when you

would have to come back and spend even more money than the money initially saved in the end to get it right.

          
          I agree that it is a stretch for disease to be a problem being in the gravel layer. The pathogens for potential disease are always hanging

out in the thatch, organic matter and soil profile feeding and waiting for the perfect conditions to incubate. What Patrick's club could have had

problems with in the gravel layer is the overly-angular gravel selection catching precipitated bicarbonates and heavy metals such as iron in all

of the nooks and crannies of the gravel. That could very well be the issue and the result is probably the worst scenario imagineable with a

USGA green, having the pores in the deepest part of the green profile getting clogged up. If that happens, there is virtually no other choice but

to rip them up and start over. Because how do you rectify a problem that is even deeper than the 12" layer of greensmix? The only thing that

can think of is the use of acids to dissolve the minerals clogged up in the popcorn layer    In the past couple years there are companies that

have realeased acid products that do a good job instantly dissolving minerals clogging up the thatch layer and soil profile as a result of poor

water quality. Ive personally used Exximo and had good success with it. Its an acid developed initially to clean the inside of cement truck

mixers. My point is similar to what I said earlier about a green is only perking as fast as its upper 3". A green is also only perking as fast

as its bottom 3". The difference is its WAY much more harder to rectify the bottom of the soil profile, let alone the gravel.

              In closing I can see why people lose faith in a USGA spec green if it is not followed by the exact specifications set by the USGA

using cheaper materials. Its not going to perform the way it should perform. And ultimately gets a reputation. I have no idea what the

situation is with the greens at Pat's club, its purely speculation based off of the fact that he said they went off spec with river rock that was

so angular it looked like popcorn. Im now sure if Pat hated me before he wants to f***ing kill me now! Dont take any of this the wrong way

Pat!!  I could be wrong, if I am way off base go ahead and rip me a new a****le....

              

ps  I have some messages I need to return to a handful of you and I will as soon as I get home this evening. Just wanted to keep up with

       the thread.

        

         I

[Patrick_Mucci]

John & Greg,

I don't have my files in front of me, they're in Florida, but, the next time I go there I'll dig them out and try to provide the answers to the questions you posed.

In Southeastern Florida, with its semi-tropical climate, disease was a concern.  

The State of Florida abandoned their grass certification program, only to reinstate it after a number of years.  Years that saw an increase in problem greens.

What's interesting about USGA green specs is their changing nature, from the particle size of the sand to the tiered structure, they've evolved over the last few decades.

I believe their evolution is a by-product of improved function.

In part, I think that comes from those individuals who disagreed with the spec and modified the spec.  In some cases that backfired, in other cases it produced an improved product, and that product then became the norm, or the spec.

They've evolved because earlier specs/methods weren't as successful, otherwise, we'd still be using those earlier specs/methods.

TEPaul,

We did an extensive amount of research and due diligence and retained the best experts we could find in an attempt to produce the best possible product and results, always understanding, that we needed Mother Nature's help.

We also tried to institute meaningful quality control points, and in many cases rejected sub-standard materials, especially greens mix.

To a degree, while the bidding process is necessary, I believe it leads to the cutting of corners and the tendency to substitute inferior materials.

Contaminated materials can bring about the ruination of a green.
Even though it might appear satisfactory on opening day.

We were doing DNA testing of grasses with the University of Tennessee in the early 1990's, long before anyone thought that OJ was just a celebrity.

When you visit, I'll turn you loose on my files, all five feet of them.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

In that last paragraph to me in that last post; I hear you, but what are you talking about there---Boca Rio?

If so, I hope you understand that's Florida---it's a basically super-sand based soil and soil structure and one just can't generalize this type of subject that way with a lot of the rest of the country.

There are apples and there are oranges, Pat. Do you need me to explain that to you too?

[Patrick_Mucci]

     
I think Patricks example with the popcorn river rock and what may or may not have went wrong with that project is a good example of how
easily a USGA spec method can get a bad reputation. In Patricks defense the specifications they followed were probably the specifications being
recommended by the USGA at that time. What year was it Patrick?
They were.
The year was 1991

Of course clubs will follow the USGA's recommendation. But thats not to say that the model they specified at that time was probably successful. The main objective with a modified green design is to utilize the gravel layer around the pipe and the bottom 6" of the profile, while using a sand layer that will "bridge" over the gravel which means that it wont just slide into the gravel layer contaminating it and clogging everything up.

In the beginning the USGA used a "choker layer" which was used to "bridge" the greens mix over the gravel layer. The choker layer
was sized to be slightly smaller than the particle size of the gravel and slightly larger than the greens mix, while at the same time allowing
adequate drainage into the gravel layer.

Where Patricks project may have went wrong was obviously choosing to use the cheaper gravel. I cant speak for what was available
around the Philly area back then, but I can say that when I was construction foreman for Empire Golf we had no problem getting
7/16" washed pea gravel for bunker and greens drainage. Its slightly angular but it wasnt uber-angular to where it resembled popcorn and
had nooks and crannies in it.


The project wasn't in the Philly area, it was in Southeastern Florida.
We DIDN'T use the cheaper gravel/river rock.
We used a higher quality of river rock that I believe we imported from Alabama

I am pretty confident a USGA agronomist didnt spec what Pats club used, the river rock was cheaper and readily available. If this was
the case, they should have postponed the project until they could afford the extra $5 - $10,000 extra to get the highest quality materials

We assembled our specs from the USGA agronomist and our consultants who worked with them and I opted for the more expensive river rock.

I dont know Pats club or if the greens were a success or not.


They were a SUCCESS

But I do know that if they werent successful and it was attributed to
the USGA design (that went out of spec), it was a poor choice to save extra money in the beginning of the greens life. Especially when you
would have to come back and spend even more money than the money initially saved in the end to get it right.

Agreed

I agree that it is a stretch for disease to be a problem being in the gravel layer. The pathogens for potential disease are always hanging
out in the thatch, organic matter and soil profile feeding and waiting for the perfect conditions to incubate.

What Patrick's club could have had problems with in the gravel layer is the overly-angular gravel selection catching precipitated bicarbonates and heavy metals such as iron in all of the nooks and crannies of the gravel. That could very well be the issue and the result is probably the worst scenario imagineable with a USGA green, having the pores in the deepest part of the green profile getting clogged up. If that happens, there is virtually no other choice but to rip them up and start over. Because how do you rectify a problem that is even deeper than the 12" layer of greensmix?


The above statement confirms what I indicated earlier, namely, that there can be serious problems encountered when using USGA green specs.

The only thing that can think of is the use of acids to dissolve the minerals clogged up in the popcorn layer    

In the past couple years there are companies that
have realeased acid products that do a good job instantly dissolving minerals clogging up the thatch layer and soil profile as a result of poor
water quality. Ive personally used Exximo and had good success with it. Its an acid developed initially to clean the inside of cement truck
mixers. My point is similar to what I said earlier about a green is only perking as fast as its upper 3". A green is also only perking as fast
as its bottom 3". The difference is its WAY much more harder to rectify the bottom of the soil profile, let alone the gravel.

Ian, this seems to confirm some of the problems that can be encountered when using USGA specs.  I liken it to having too many moving parts, too many chances for error, in specs, materials and construction.

In closing I can see why people lose faith in a USGA spec green if it is not
using cheaper materials. Its not going to perform the way it should perform. And ultimately gets a reputation.

Clubs may not perform the necessary due diligence, or may skimp to save costs not realizing that in the long run, it's going to cost far more.
We were fortunate in that we spent the additional money in an attempt to get the highest quality material.

The other thing you have to consider is why has there been an  evolutionary progression of USGA spec greens ?
My take is because someone made modifications that produced better results and now those modifications are the norm or spec.

I have no idea what the situation is with the greens at Pat's club, its purely speculation based off of the fact that he said they went off spec with river rock that was so angular it looked like popcorn. Im now sure if Pat hated me before he wants to fucking kill me now! Dont take any of this the wrong way

I'm not.
Your points are valid and confirm the need for due diligence and the need to strive for quality.  Fortunately for us the greens turned out great.
The main problem was that the fairway grass which we specifically contracted for, 419, wasn't 419 but a mutt or Heintz mixture of grasses.
But, that's another issue.

Pat!!  I could be wrong, if I am rip me a new asshole....


No, I agree with most of what you said, finding it in harmony with my earlier position.  I knew you'd come around eventually.
              
ps  I have some messages I need to return to a handful of you and I will as soon as I get home this evening. Just wanted to keep up with the thread.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

In that last paragraph to me in that last post; I hear you, but what are you talking about there---Boca Rio?

If so, I hope you understand that's Florida---it's a basically super-sand based soil and soil structure and one just can't generalize this type of subject that way with a lot of the rest of the country.

You COULDN'T be more wrong.

You're obviously not familiar with the geological facts in Florida other than the Gulfstream parking lot and beach where you bedazzled co-eds.

The Turnpike was built on a strong foundation, not sand.
West of the Turnpike you'll be hard pressed to find super-sand based soil.

There are apples and there are oranges, Pat. Do you need me to explain that to you too?

Obviously Grasshopper, it is you who needs enlightenment .

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It would probably not be hard at all to prove what the soil/sand make-up of any course in Florida was PRE-CONSTRUCTION!

And believe me, there is absolutely no reason for anyone on here or elsewhere to take YOUR word for what it was! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

It would probably not be hard at all to prove what the soil/sand make-up of any course in Florida was PRE-CONSTRUCTION!

And believe me, there is absolutely no reason for anyone on here or elsewhere to take YOUR word for what it was! 

TEPaul,

When you peruse my files you'll find the geological studies that confirm what I've stated.

You'll also find the infrared aerials and all sorts of goodies that you never knew existed.

We did our homework.

Have fun

[Ian Larson]

Patrick,

       I guess Im thoroughly confused with what you are basing your stance off of. If The greens you personally had a hand in were a success,

and have been for the past 18 years, whats with your strong stance against a USGA spec? It seems to me that it has been very good for you.

Even with the older version. 18 years is a good run, and if it is continued to be managed correctly its my opinion USGA greens could last

another 18 years.

       I personally dont see anything majorly wrong with the USGA's older version. The only difference is back then they used a course sand

layer that would bridge the gap between the greens mix and the drainage gravel while also protecting the drainage gravel from being clogged

by the smaller sand particle size of the greens mix. It was all conducive to working as a well draining green as long as it was built to spec and

managed correctly.

        You mention how the USGA spec has been modified over the years as it may have been the result of failures. I dont think its a matter

of the original designs being failures. If they were built to spec and cared for, they would drain. And thats what matters the most. I think that

the remodifications are more of a product of the USGA evolving with everything else around them. With their continuous research and

development I firmly believe they made it a priority to keep making it even better and more efficient with construction, raw materials and

construction costs.

           In my last post I brought up that it was a stretch for USGA greens to be hosting pathogens for disease within the gravel layer that was

applied with the irrigation and rain water perking through it. I dont want to say throw that theory out , but, throw that theory out. Im not

saying that its not possible to have infectious pathogenic spores hanging out down there but they probably wouldnt be the ones innoculating

the turf 18" above on the canopy.

             Speaking of the gravel layer, something still just isnt making sense to me with the shape you described and how much it cost. You

claim you opted for the the highest quality at a higher cost, but for a very expensive gravel it doesnt make sense that each particle would have

all the nooks and crannies you described with the appearance of popcorn. All the nooks and crannies and pronounced appendages you would

associate with a kernel of popcorn just dont seem like something the USGA would prescribe. And for the very reason you stated yourself, all

the nooks and crannies increase surface area on each particle which raises the chances for smaller particles or precipitates to cling on. A

common particle prescribed by the USGA would be from 7/16 to 3/8, moderately angular and smooth. But never nooks and crannies. I was

only in the 7th grade in 1991 so I have no idea what they approved for you to use. But in either case, they were successful right? 18 years

running right?

               In the my last post that you responded to, you pointed out the scenario I was purely speculating with your greens as a confirmation

of your point that there are risks with USGA spec. But that still doesnt get us anywhere because I was speculating about your greens. And you

confirmed that you used the best USGA spec materials which produced successful greens that are now 18 years old and still successful. Im

confused because you only have agreed with my speculations, which are only, well, speculations. Something that is possible and didnt

necessarily happen. Especially with your greens because they were, in fact, successful.

                 Im not completely doubting you, yet. But there is a big disconnect with all of this. Youve made a strong case against me and

USGA greens with...

1. Your experience with green construction as committee chairs

2. Your projects being successful

3. A handful of other points that I agreed with but were points that would be dimissed when measuring the advantages of USGA spec.

 
So...we still havent pinned anything tangible down as to what you have personally seen wrong with USGA spec green construction and why.

       You have, however, stated some observations such as settling, disease and poor construction. But if your projects were successes

       like you say they were, where have you seen such observations?







             

[Patrick_Mucci]

I guess Im thoroughly confused with what you are basing your stance off of. If The greens you personally had a hand in were a success,
and have been for the past 18 years, whats with your strong stance against a USGA spec? It seems to me that it has been very good for you.

I've taken no "strong" stance against USGA greens, rather a positive stance with regard to push-up greens from an architectural point of view.

The inability to introduce pronounced contour and the ability to subsequently alter them is why I tend to favor push-up greens.

Even with the older version. 18 years is a good run, and if it is continued to be managed correctly its my opinion USGA greens could last another 18 years.

Agreed

I personally dont see anything majorly wrong with the USGA's older version. The only difference is back then they used a course sand
layer that would bridge the gap between the greens mix and the drainage gravel while also protecting the drainage gravel from being clogged
by the smaller sand particle size of the greens mix. It was all conducive to working as a well draining green as long as it was built to spec and
managed correctly.

True, but, the multi-tiered layering is an arduous process begging for errors in construction, and that multi-tiered structure is a clear impediment to crafting pronounced contouring.

You mention how the USGA spec has been modified over the years as it may have been the result of failures. I dont think its a matter
of the original designs being failures. If they were built to spec and cared for, they would drain. And thats what matters the most. I think that
the remodifications are more of a product of the USGA evolving with everything else around them. With their continuous research and
development I firmly believe they made it a priority to keep making it even better and more efficient with construction, raw materials and
construction costs.

I'm not so sure that field modifications didn't preceed labratory modifications.  There was a lot of debate about the multi-tiered method, drainage, disease, construction difficulties, etc, etc.. and it wouldn't surprise me to learn that modifications were made in the field that succeeded.

In my last post I brought up that it was a stretch for USGA greens to be hosting pathogens for disease within the gravel layer that was
applied with the irrigation and rain water perking through it. I dont want to say throw that theory out , but, throw that theory out. Im not
saying that its not possible to have infectious pathogenic spores hanging out down there but they probably wouldnt be the ones innoculating
the turf 18" above on the canopy.

Speaking of the gravel layer, something still just isnt making sense to me with the shape you described and how much it cost. You
claim you opted for the the highest quality at a higher cost, but for a very expensive gravel it doesnt make sense that each particle would have
all the nooks and crannies you described with the appearance of popcorn. All the nooks and crannies and pronounced appendages you would
associate with a kernel of popcorn just dont seem like something the USGA would prescribe. And for the very reason you stated yourself, all
the nooks and crannies increase surface area on each particle which raises the chances for smaller particles or precipitates to cling on. A
common particle prescribed by the USGA would be from 7/16 to 3/8, moderately angular and smooth. But never nooks and crannies. I was
only in the 7th grade in 1991 so I have no idea what they approved for you to use. But in either case, they were successful right? 18 years
running right?


The expensive rock didn't have nooks and crannys, the cheaper rock did.
Think of marbles as being the prefered shape, that way almost nothing could cling to them, whereas irregular rock/stone/gravel will encourage adhesion.  I chose the smoother, marbles like rock.

In the my last post that you responded to, you pointed out the scenario I was purely speculating with your greens as a confirmation
of your point that there are risks with USGA spec. But that still doesnt get us anywhere because I was speculating about your greens. And you
confirmed that you used the best USGA spec materials which produced successful greens that are now 18 years old and still successful. Im
confused because you only have agreed with my speculations, which are only, well, speculations. Something that is possible and didnt
necessarily happen. Especially with your greens because they were, in fact, successful.

Im not completely doubting you, yet. But there is a big disconnect with all of this. Youve made a strong case against me and
USGA greens with...

1. Your experience with green construction as committee chairs

2. Your projects being successful

3. A handful of other points that I agreed with but were points that would be dimissed when measuring the advantages of USGA spec.

So...we still havent pinned anything tangible down as to what you have personally seen wrong with USGA spec green construction and why.

For some of the reasons you confirmed, namely, all the moving parts and how easily it is, if one of them goes wrong, for the final product to be compromised.

In your defense of USGA greens you layed out a perfect world, in terms of materials, design and construction, but, we know that errors occur and the more moving parts you have, the greater the likelihood for errors.

A good example is trying to create greens with pronounced contours.
Despite your experience at Dove Mountain, they're very difficult to craft.
Every layer must mirror every other layer.
GRAVITY and RAIN are your enemies.

If you analyze the vast majority of USGA greens you won't find the pronounced features found in push-up greens.  You won't find spines, ridges, mounds, shelfs, etc.,etc...

Examine the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 11th and 12th greens at NGLA and ask yourself, could those greens be rebuilt as USGA spec'd greens, without enormous additional expense ?  And, if built, would they survive as intended over time.

You have, however, stated some observations such as settling, disease and poor construction. But if your projects were successes like you say they were, where have you seen such observations?

From other courses who experienced problems and had to have their greens rebuilt.  When I next visit Florida I'll try to retrieve the names of the courses that had the problems.  But, you and I know that many clubs had problems with their USGA greens.  You'll tell me that it was poor quality materials or poor construction, but, the reason doesn't matter.  The bottom line is that USGA greens are more complicated to craft than push-up greens and inherently have more problems associated with the multi-tiered structure.

However, my main points were that they inately don't encourage pronounced contour and that they are not easily altered, two critical factors that are easily accomodated with push up greens.

If you didn't like some of the contours at Dove Mountain and wanted to recontour a few greens, would that be a simple project, ala push up greens, or a complicated, expensive project ?
             

[Greg Chambers]

I'll go ahead and throw this one out there.  A properly constructed push up green contains a layer of a minimum of 9" of well draining topsoil on top of the undisturbed subgrade or compacted fill.  So, if you were to go in after the fact and re-contour the green, would you not have to do it in stages, just like you would have to on a USGA green?  I'm not so sure that re-contouring a push up, properly, is as simple as stripping the sod and moving the dirt around.  Albeit, not as complicated as doing the same on a USGA green, but it's still not a simple process.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

Sorry to go back to the first page of this thread but I've just started reading it carefully from the beginning.

Regarding your post (Reply #33) you seem to be answering John Moore's question about topdressing and such changing the makeup of a profile or not. I suppose you're particularly concentrating on the inherent sand/soil/drainage makeup of the top profile but I was wondering given years of topdressing how much the surface of a green might tend to rise given various factors. I also noticed you mentioned Scott Anderson and his practices at HVGC.

So I called Scott just now and got him on a throne (toilet) in New Mexico.

I asked him how much the surfaces of various types of greens could rise over an extended period of time given various factors and maintenance practices. He said a lot given various factors such as straight sand topdressing. He said this is why he likes to mix in a higher percentage of organic material in his topdressing because he believes that organic material will naturally breakdown thatch and buildup far more than a greater percentage of sand will.

He also said he is and has been trying to stop the surfaces of his greens from continuing to rise and he does it this way and with tining and remixing back in.

Does that make sense to you? If you have some questions for him let me or Kyle Harris know and we'll get answers for you form him.

[TEPaul]

Ian:

By the way, as far as the likelihood of green surfaces rising over the decades, about a year ago I was speaking to Mel Lucas (If you don't know who he is you need to). I call Mel something of a architectural or agronomic archaeologist----eg he's really good at analyzing the evolutionary reasons behind old profiles by deep core analyses and such.

Anyway, he was in North Carolina analyzing the greens of some old Ross course down there and he mentioned he'd found some old irrigation heads about two feet UNDER some green surfaces!! Isn't that amazing?!

[TEPaul]

"The inability to introduce pronounced contour and the ability to subsequently alter them is why I tend to favor push-up greens."


Pat:

First of all, when you say the inability to introduce pronounced counter into USGA spec greens, that should probably be qualified. It's not really a matter of contour not being able to be introduced into USGA spec greens, it's only a matter of it taking more time and effort to do it during construction because the subgrade layering of a USGA green has to be matched across the profile and apparently for obvious reasons that's more time consuming and more work than a push-up. At least this is the way Bill Coore explained it to me years ago but maybe you think you know something about USGA spec greens vs pushups that Bill Coore doesn't.

As far as USGA spec greens being more difficult to REcontour and redesign after the fact, maybe that could be looked at as a good thing. Too many people just think to redesign greens and soften them in an on-goig attempt to keep upping green speed, in my opinion.

[John Moore II]

Ian:

By the way, as far as the likelihood of green surfaces rising over the decades, about a year ago I was speaking to Mel Lucas (If you don't know who he is you need to). I call Mel something of a architectural or agronomic archaeologist----eg he's really good at analyzing the evolutionary reasons behind old profiles by deep core analyses and such.

Anyway, he was in North Carolina analyzing the greens of some old Ross course down there and he mentioned he'd found some old irrigation heads about two feet UNDER some green surfaces!! Isn't that amazing?!

That is quite amazing. What course was he analyzing? I have to assume he was not on one of the Pinehurst resort courses given the total reconstruction work that has taken place there over the past few years on the 3 remaining Ross courses.

Given that finding, assuming these are original or semi-original push-up green complexes, can we assume that these complexes have been able to last this long because of the constant change in soil/sand/organic matter under the grass? Meaning the Super adapted to the changes in the soil composition by sand/soil topdressing to alter the composition back to what it was before the change or to something better.

I am very curious to know what course we are talking about. I would also be curious to know how Ross's original push-up greens worked at Raleigh Country Club in the early days given our hard, dense clay soil here.

[Greg Chambers]

JKM,

Could it be that the origional push up greens were constructed using Ross' modified root zone?  He had been using the technology for 30 some years by that time.

[John Moore II]

JKM,

Could it be that the origional push up greens were constructed using Ross' modified root zone?  He had been using the technology for 30 some years by that time.

I am not sure. I have never seen the details of RCC. Perhaps they were though.

[Ian Larson]

Pat,

    Ok, I thought I read that the gravel you chose was the popcorn shaped gravel. Were coming around on this slowly.


Ive agreed with you that USGA spec...

1. Cost money

2. Take time

3. More difficult to recontour



I really get where youre coming from, I really do. But I cant accept some of the points you make against USGA spec such as....

1. Too many moving parts

2. Its difficult to match the layers ( there are only 2 now, gravel and greens mix )

3. Poor construction quality

4. Great chance for cheaper materials out of spec to be used


One more part, being the gravel layer, doesnt qualify too many parts to me. Its actually very quite easy to match the gravel layer to the

sub-grade layer and the greens mix layer to the gravel layer. And this is coming from a guy that has spent a lot of time with a rake, a sand-pro

and a laser getting it just right until the sun went down everyday. Its not hard at all.


And again I HAVE to bring up Dove Mountain. Forget about what your opinion might be about the architect, the course he built and the

architectural merit of it. Lets just look at the greens as a case study in what you can accomplish. A quote from you...


"If you analyze the vast majority of USGA greens you won't find the pronounced features found in push-up greens.  You won't find spines, ridges, mounds, shelfs, etc.,etc."


...all of this was accomplished at Dove Mountain with USGA greens. I watched alot of that tournament all four days and can remember each of

those features distinctly. I would love to have the contour maps of those greens.


On a personal note, I have a side business here in Santa Monica and Beverly Hills where I design and construct personal putting greens at

residences. The last one I completed was for a client who was a member at Riviera and Sherwood. A golf and golf architecture maniac, he

wanted a 5000 square foot putting green with a lot of movement and 3 decent sized illuminated bunkers that resembled what Rivieras looked

like when it was first completed in '27. All of the features you mentioned couldnt be seen in a USGA spec is what I shaped into his green. His

only request was that I shape it so that he will never get bored with the same green in his backyard. I know this wont be taken seriously

from a lowly amateur wannabe architect but its a substantial part of why I disagree with you on not being able to shape subtle features, the

other part is what Jack pulled off at Dove Mountain. Like them or not, he pulled the features off.


The other points you keep bringing up with poor construction and the chance of out-of-spec materials being used is all in the hands of the

builder, the owner, the architect, the developer etc.. I can say with the utmost certainty that an architect like Gil Hanse, who himself probably

prefers push-up greens, would be involved with material selection if he was designing USGA spec greens. Gil obviously takes a huge personal

interest in his projects. And when presented with a project that has his name all over it, Gil is not going to allow corners to be cut that would

set up for failure. I would also speculate that an architect like Gil would feel confident in his ability to create or recreate the subtle contours

for a new green or a classic era green that is making the transition to USGA. Im also confident that an architect Gil makes sure he is there

to have the final say and sign off on the final contouring before its seeded. This is all speculation with Gil but I think its somewhat accurate

and you could replace Gil's name with a lot of architects out there. I think you,re grossly underestimating the passion, talent and care that

goes into these projects. Im not saying a project has never gone awry or done quickly just to get a cash flow going and quality was sacrificed.

Im sure it has happened, but I also think that is the very small minority.



More responses coming.....

[TEPaul]

John K. Moore:

Re: your post #117, I can't remember what Ross course that was Mel Lucas was at and talking about but I think I remember him mentioning that like a bunch of those courses down there in sort of out of the way places, the club and course never had any money and for that reason very little was changed and it was something of an evolutionary marvel for him because so little had been done to the course over time. It just evolved over many decades.

[Greg Chambers]

I would have to say that green speeds have waaaaayyyyyyy more to do with the recent lack of interesting contours within greens than the construction method does.

[John Moore II]

I would have to say that green speeds have waaaaayyyyyyy more to do with the recent lack of interesting contours within greens than the construction method does.

I should say that the above statement is likely more correct and less debateable than most other statements given on this thread. Greens running 12+ feet can't have exceptional contours; they'd be unplayable for even the best putters.

Edit: as closed for debate as I feel this statement is, I am sure Patrick will try to argue that it is somehow incorrect. Perhaps he will disagree with the spelling of 'waaaaayyyyyyy' saying it should be spelled 'wwaaaaaayyyyyy.' 

[Ian Larson]

I'll go ahead and throw this one out there.  A properly constructed push up green contains a layer of a minimum of 9" of well draining topsoil on top of the undisturbed subgrade or compacted fill.  So, if you were to go in after the fact and re-contour the green, would you not have to do it in stages, just like you would have to on a USGA green?  I'm not so sure that re-contouring a push up, properly, is as simple as stripping the sod and moving the dirt around.  Albeit, not as complicated as doing the same on a USGA green, but it's still not a simple process.

Greg,

I agree with this and meant to touch on it yesterday.


Even with re-contouring a push-up green. Stripping the sod not only on the green but far enough out into the surrounds so a very natural

tie-in can be achieved. Then coming in with a tractor and box blade or even a bulldozer. I hate to tell you but that 80 year old push-up green

that took 80 years to achieve a beautiful soil profile, has just been reset to day one.

If the objective was to re-contour the green and stay with the native soil as a growing medium. The soil structure of the original profile has

been completely altered and disrupted by that bulldozer.

To be more specific....if the club was an inland club that used the heavier native soils 80 years ago for pushing up the greens, and then spent

those 80 years aerifying, back-filling and topdressing. Taking the bulldozer through and reshaping completely obliterates that now sandier soil

structure that took so long to achieve. 80 years of sanding created a nice consistent and fairly deep soil profile with a good amount of sand

blended in to it.


My question to that is....if you know that the greens profile has taken so long to achieve a good sandy content. And the club wants them

re-contoured. Does anyone think that they will still have the same growing medium after making cuts into the soil and reshaping?

I dont.


My next question is how do you achieve trying to maintain and recreate that same soil structure you began with? And what if only 1 or a few

greens are being re-contoured? How do you return then to their original state that is consistent with the others?


Heres another....If maintaining and returning the original soil structure of the greens was a priority to the club. And one of the solutions was

to scrape the top 12" of the original profile off and have it mixed or blended, either on site or off site. And then install some drainage tile into

the previously "drainage-less" sub-soil. Followed up by reimporting the freshly mixed native topsoil to the green site where it was installed

and reshaped to the final new grade. How is this VASTLY different than a USGA. I know some of you will come back with the differences but

please try to keep it very basic. Keep in mind key objectives like profile consistency, soil structure, drainage, perched water tables.



Ill end this post with this...

Like Greg pointed out earlier....you cannot expect to just strip sod, make cuts or reshape only the top 3,4 or 5 inches of the greens profile.

Disturbing a soil structure that has been untouched for 80 years will completely alter the physical characteristics of the soil. Bulk density

has just went down to zero, natural pore spaces are blown away. Disturbing, reshaping and compacting the upper crust of the profile will

completely alter the way water moves through the soil profile in the upper crust into the lower undisturbed profile. Its the same as

topdressing a green so heavily and so frequently, and creating a layer up top that acts completely different than the bottom.