USGA greens in the UK ?

[Brian_Ewen]

Just wondering , are all the greens on new courses being built in the UK nowadays , USGA type greens ?

Also , what about courses that are re-designing , or building new holes etc. , are they more likely to go with USGA type greens , even though it would not match their original greens ?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Just wondering , are all the greens on new courses being built in the UK nowadays , USGA type greens ?

Also , what about courses that are re-designing , or building new holes etc. , are they more likely to go with USGA type greens , even though it would not match their original greens ?

Pretty much USGA type greens are used in the UK or at the least the rootzone will conform to USGA specifications. Its very rare that a course would move outside those parameters even if its redesigning and clearly there is no matching. Modern USGA soils drain very quickly and that is often the reason for rebuilding an older green.

[Brian_Ewen]

Thanks Adrian .

[Sean_A]

There is only one course in my immediate with USGA spec greens - Redditch.  The club went to considerable expense to re-do the greens some 10 years ago and they are very good in winter whereas other in the area struggle. That said, the fairways get so sloppy that I have to wonder if doing the greens was worth it.

Ciao

[Brian Phillips]

That is a typical mistake by clubs.  Instead of upgrading the fairways as well as the greens they only do greens.  The greens look fantastic but they cannot cut the fairways or even open the course because the fairways are soaking.  So they have 18 brand new greens worth anything from 450 000 sterling to 600 000 sterling sat there all very pretty.

[James Boon]

All the greens at my home course in Derbyshire were rebuilt approx 10 years ago. They decided to build them all to USGA specification. I'm still a bit fuzzy when it comes to grass species but I think we initially had a USGA specification grass on them, but as the area is predominantly what everyone calls meadow grass, this has over time taken over. This did mean a few years where the greens were patchy with a couple of different types of grass but they are now very good.

The new greens are have always drained really well and are pretty much playable all year round but as only minimal work was done to the fairways and as Sean and Brian mention, our course will still be unplayable after heavy rain, but is generally very playable through the year.

Cheers,

James

[Adrian_Stiff]

Using USGA conforming materials especially in the rootzone will extend the golf season for better putting surfaces. Typically our winters can be pretty horrible for December through to March, on heavy clays there may not be much you can do to fairways that is economic sense...however in the scheme of things money spent on the greens is wise and is the first area not to skimp in a typical UK construction budget, personally for what gravel rafts cost in the scheme of a green build I would not ommitt that either. You have to be very lucky to find native soils (links type sand) where your material costs are pretty much zero. USGA conforming rootzone is $50/£30 per tonne and you can multiply that by 250 quite easily in building a normal sized green.

[Adrian_Stiff]

James, most inland courses will be unplayable after heavy rain, probably your USGA greens will be okay very quickly after the rain. USGA sands that comprise typically 80% of the rootzone allow water to percolate very quickly, if the sands are blended with the wrong materials even by a few per cent it can mess things up though.
Annual meadow grass invasion in the UK is always going to happen and what often happens is the new greens are sown with fescues or bents initially that are pure but they get invaded by Annual meadow grass (Poa Annua). The invasion sort of doubles each year so after about 5 years you get that patchy mix..after 10 years you will be mainly Poa, but with good drainage..Poa is a debate all of its own but most UK greenkeepers have learned that we have to live with it and manage it the best we can.
As our golf courses have moved inland we are forced to use less than perfect areas for our fairways.

[Brian_Ewen]

That is a typical mistake by clubs.  Instead of upgrading the fairways as well as the greens they only do greens.  The greens look fantastic but they cannot cut the fairways or even open the course because the fairways are soaking.  So they have 18 brand new greens worth anything from 450 000 sterling to 600 000 sterling sat there all very pretty.

Brian , do I read that as , if they dont have money to do greens and fairways , then its a waste of time and money ?

[Brian Phillips]

Brian,

It will vary from course to course.  An investment return analysis should be done before greens or fairways are touched. 

If USGA greens will help the course open earlier (like they do in Norway) then it could be positive however there is no point building USGA greens if you cannot play the course anyway due to poor drainage in the fairway.

We have just rebuilt 16 greens at Stavanger golf course and rebuilt 3 of the worst fairways, that was enough to ensure that the course stays open during really heavy rain. Some of the fairways are not perfect but the worst ones were replaced. 

It varies all the time, I just do not understand clubs that just go ahead with USGA rebuilding when there are so many other things that would give much better return for their money.

[Scott Macpherson]

Brian,

I am not sure about all the new greens being built in the UK these days, but we are just building a new course in Newcastle at the moment, and the putting greens are full USGA spec greens.

scott

[Tom_Doak]

Our greens at The Renaissance Club were not built to the USGA cross-section, but of course we had good native sands to build from, and saw no advantage to creating a perched water table.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tom you are in the rare place where you have good soils ofcourse, go inland and its very hard. Did u lab test or just rely on that it worked okay next door?
A conforming rootzone for the right percolation is probaby the most important factor. That equals the good drainage.

[Scott Macpherson]

Our greens at The Renaissance Club were not built to the USGA cross-section, but of course we had good native sands to build from, and saw no advantage to creating a perched water table.

Tom,

There seems to be contrasting views on whether or not USGA greens do perch water. What's your take on the matter?

scott

[Ben Stephens]

Brian,

I have recently built an 18 hole course - with just 6 inches of rootzone with a layer of existing good quality topsoil underneath with clay that drains reasonably well below. This was mainly due to cost reasons. These greens drain very well most of the time and will need a bit more maintenance than a USGA greens. There are slopes which enables water runoff so that they do not get flooded.

I have had question marks whether USGA greens work well  in the UK with its mixture of fescue and bent grass greens - fescue roots needs moisture underneath to keep it healthy during dry periods and the USGA greens drain and dry out quicker than clay topsoil which holds moisture better. I think the soil substructure for the greens should be different in the UK than the US to suit our climate, type of grasses and other factors.

Ben

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

I have no idea whether a USGA green really functions as they say (with the perched water table) or not.

I am sure that many do not, because they haven't really been built to spec.  But even if you build them exactly to spec, if they've got a lot of contour like mine tend to, I'm not sure that everything works below grade as it would for a flatter green.

My goal is just to keep all of that stuff as simple as possible.  We try to start with a good sand mix [yes, we test it Adrian] and then make sure the green has good surface drainage.  If you've got both of those, you should be on the right track.  If we are in bad soils then we will import material to build the greens, but whether we build them to USGA spec depends on the superintendent and the client and what's around them.  Playability-wise, there's nothing I hate worse than a USGA sand green with clay approaches and surrounds.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am definetly less pro buiding full USGA spec since I have been active on this site. My last course is a bit of a mixture we probaby built 9 of the greens using a three layered system of 100mm/ 20mm flint shinge + 50mm/ 2.8mm basalt grit + 250mm/ 0.4 silica sand blended with milled peat and on 9 I scrubbed the shingle and doubled my depth on the grit. My reason is some of the greens were heavily contoured and using 3 layers its pretty impossible to marry the layers and get your desired grading on the finished surface without breaching the true strictness of how a USGA should be built.
Both sets of greens have performed the same way.
I think it is probaby fair to say if you want greens with heavy contours and spines you cant do them USGA (exacty).
Ben - I think USGA greens work fine in the UK, the problems with the grasses you mention are not really allied to a USGA green. We are aways going to have a probem retaining fescue in greens when we mow at less than 6mm, you only have to look at many seaside greens mown at 3 or 4mm and see almost zero fescue on the putting surface itself and then go to the collars where fescue is dominant but maintained at say 7-8mm.
The thing to remember is that a USGA rootzone is merely the right 'dirty sand' that allows water to pass quickly and will perform over a period of time that way because of the particle sizes, shape (rounded) and the particle material must not break down or rebind. The actual sand is very important, the right sand for greens construction is usually the wrong sand for bunkers. Bunker sand is better angular.
Also the USGA have been telling us how to build greens for many decades and the 1982 method is different to the 2009 one. So the whole USGA specc thing is not so fixed anyway.

[Ben Stephens]

Adi,

Thanks for your greenkeeper expertise point of view - I have seen courses with USGA greens in the UK heavily water their greens during dry periods cos the water drains away quickly throught the USGA spec substructure.

I always thought that on the seaside there is more moisture in the air as opposed to under the surface that helps the grass to survive on links courses with sandy bases.

At RWGC we have mown fescue greens below 6mm and they were still lush with the right thickness of sward - not too thick or thin, the fescue has still been retained.

Why dont we have a R+A spec greens for the UK and Northern Europe as opposed to USGA greens. Also in California they used sand based greens due to its climate.

Brian

I am sure the Sports Turf Research Institute will have more info regarding this.  http://www.stri.org.uk/

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ben - I have heard of 'bad' USGA greens and all I really definetly know is how I have built the last 100 greens which pretty much have all been the same and have performed the same. We have varied very slighty with seed mixtures but more or less they are the best greens in those areas. A couple of courses proclaim USGA greens but are poor. I don't really know what they did wrong but the constructors of those greens are members of the 'association' and I am not. I have followed a 87 USGA spec but I quite strictly follow an equalled D-value relationship between my particle sizes when I build up the spec, I always put in collar drains but I dont use perimiter blankets (that can encourage sloppy aprons).
Not many grasses enjoy being mown at less than 6mm, bent grasses are ok at the lowest heights, you might get away with cropping fescue below the knee for a while but it will die eventually...typically you find fescue on higher, dryer ground, it does not like food either.
Good rootzone is the main ingredient over an area that drains well, a design to produce good surface drainage is even more important if the want to knockout your gravel rafts.

[Ben Stephens]

There are good and bad to everything - I played James' home course Horsley Lodge with Peter McEvoy redesigned USGA greens - they seemed to perform well. I had budget constraints at RWGC so ended up with only 6 inches of rootzone with no perforated pipes underneath to my surprise they have performed much better as they had slopes to run the water off - one of the downsides of having this substructure is that the greens firm up quickly in dry weather.

It is interesting that you use collar drains rather than wall blankets - i have drainpipes on the collar but its used for the irrigation. Having seen the Sawgrass green refurbishment they used wall blankets - maybe thats more effective in the US and your approach is more effective in the UK. I have known that when the fescue greens have been cut to 4 mm the grass is 'dying' and after a tournament the greenkeepers work just as hard to make sure the grass survive.

D-value?? could you elaborate on this - in Architecture we have U-values re: 'insulating the building'

Ben

[Adrian_Stiff]

D value relationship is about the size of the particles used in the specification of materials. D meaning Diameter.
In a USGA spec green the principal is a bit like a sponge in the bath....you make the sponge wet hold it up and water passes to a point where water will be suspended against gravity...the perched water table effect...add one more drop of water and one drop will pass out...that is what we try to achieve in a true or old fashioned type USGA spec (87).. I only really ever learned the one method and I have spoken to others that believe the 87 method has never been improved and all recent advancements are more to save costs or to make the installation easier..ie the quality of the 87USGA spec has never been surpassed IMO.
Part of the process is to select the three materials Rootzone, Grit Layer, Gravel that conform not only to certain USGA specs but also have the right diameters. The idea is the Diameter values end up giving you a straight line, or as straight as possible when you plot their values on say graph paper. The perch water table effect will work best when your corresponding layers are between 5 and 10 times its formers size, but with three layers you need to select two of your best materials then marry the right material to the third layer, for instance if you used a 0.35mm sized rootzone, then used a 2mm grit, you would want to find a 12mm gravel...your D-value relationship is 6...if you could only find a 20mm gravel then you would need to find the mid point and balance both values, in this case a 2.5mm grit woud balance pretty well to give you a D-value relationship of 8. What is not good is to use a 0.35 rootzone with a 4mm grit then a 10mm shingle.

[Sean_A]

Playability-wise, there's nothing I hate worse than a USGA sand green with clay approaches and surrounds.

Tom

You are so right.  The inconsistency of firmness (or lack of) drives me crazy at Redditch.  Its a shame the club didn't at least build the surrounds and approaches more like the greens.  It would have made for a much better product, but I suspect they were stretched to the limit with the budget as it was. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Re- D values... as I understand them...

Dx = the sieve mesh size through which x% of particles in a sand will pass
D90 = the sieve mesh size through which 90% of particles in a sand will pass

The Gradation Index (that Adrian refers to) can be taken as D90/D10 and is an expression of the size ratio of larger particles to smaller particles

For a USGA root zone, your gradation index should ideally be between 4 and 5.

D-Values are also used to determine whether an intermediate layer is required between the gravel blanket and the rootzone...

[Ben Stephens]

Adi/Ally,

Thanks for the information regarding D-values will have to do a bit of further research on it.

Re: Sean's comment on Redditch - should have they put rootzone on the surrounds and up to 40 yards short of the green to achieve consistency?

Cheers

Ben

[Brian_Ewen]

Thanks to all that replied on this thread , its has been much appreciated .