Is "Core" sampling a valid method

[Patrick_Mucci]

for determining where a green was located/extended and how long ago it was lost ?

[Mike Nuzzo]

from my understanding

core sampling is small samples of greens mix tested to see the soil's health and nutrient make-up
the core tool is pretty small in diameter and penetration depth

usually it is a bulldozer that finds the old greens
the old greens mix helps determine the age - sometimes ash or old sand greens

[Steve Lang]

  IT WORKS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE SURVEYS, WITH A LITTLE GEO-STATISTICS THROWN IN WITH BLOW COUNTS AND MOISTURE AND SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS LOGGED ACROSS A DOMAIN OF SUFFICIENT AREAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT.. WHY NOT OLD GREENS?

probe, retrieve samples over 1-3 feet, auger, repeat as deep as you like..

http://www.humboldtmfg.com/c-1-p-25-id-1.html
http://www.humboldtmfg.com/c-1-p-34-id-1.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

I meant "deep" core sampling, especially around the perimeters, in areas that appear connected to the current green.

If there was a consistency in the current green and off green cores would that be sufficient information from which to draw conclusions ?

If one was armed with old/original drawings AND matching core samples from green site and off green site samples, would that be more than sufficient info from which to draw a conclusion ?

How far removed from the green area should one go in order to find NON-matching core samples ?
 
Bulldozers are out since the green/s remain in play

[John_Cullum]

How far removed from the green area should one go in order to find NON-matching core samples ?
 

Go until you don't find a matching sample

[Patrick_Mucci]

for determining where a green was located/extended and how long ago it was lost ?

If you believe the area would make an outstanding pin area why probe around for evidence of what might have been and instead look forward to what will be.

Kelly,

Because that might be an architectural revision beyond the intent of the project.

If the concept is to restore to the original configuration, I don't know how well received a "new" configuration would be, irrespective of its architectural and playability merits.

I understand what you're saying, I just think it might be rejected, as being deemed a deviation from the intent of the project.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly,

I don't disagree with you, but, adding that wing or hole location may be contrary to the "purist" interpretation of the project, and thus rejected as "non-conforming"

Time will tell.

[Tim Nugent]

It would be difficult to tell with a round 1" probe.  Try iusing a flat pan sampler.  Since they are about 4" across, it is easier to see any profile differentiation.  however, Since old greens were many times of the pushup vareity, it may be hard to tell what was green and what was just topsoil,  so depth might be needed to find where the clay changes from the "normal"depth (sample nearby rough that appears undisturbed) to determine original topsoil depth. Also, factor in any topdreassing layer (usually about 4" in old greens.
Good Luck.

[Mike Hendren]

How far removed from the green area should one go in order to find NON-matching core samples ?
 

Go until you don't find a matching sample

There is no wisdom quite like Hillbilly wisdom.  Well done, Sarge.

I don't see how on earth the Yankees won the war.

Bogey

[Patrick_Mucci]

How far removed from the green area should one go in order to find NON-matching core samples ?
 

Go until you don't find a matching sample

There is no wisdom quite like Hillbilly wisdom.  Well done, Sarge.

I don't see how on earth the Yankees won the war.

The Yankees won the war vis a vis, "funding"
"Funding" is also a component of this project and it's not "unlimited" funding, so
do you start at the green and work your way out, or start further out and work your way in ?
An objective is to minimize the number of core samples in trying to determine the former configuration, if there is one, and with push-up greens, subject to top-dressing at the perimeters and approaches, it might not be so easy to differentiate core samples..

[Jason Topp]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a precise map using aerial photographs?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a precise map using aerial photographs?

Jason,

If aerial photos were available I wouldn't have initiated this topic.

[Jason Topp]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a precise map using aerial photographs?

Jason,

If aerial photos were available I wouldn't have initiated this topic.

Based on my few efforts to find aerials (superfund litigation and two golf courses) I would find it very surprising if no relevant aerials exist for a course in the US (unless of course your search is for time periods that predate the airplane).  I have been amazed at how much is out there with a little digging.

[Tim Nugent]

What is the course and where is it located? Maybe someone can help locate something.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wouldn't it be easier to make a precise map using aerial photographs?

Jason,

If aerial photos were available I wouldn't have initiated this topic.

Based on my few efforts to find aerials (superfund litigation and two golf courses) I would find it very surprising if no relevant aerials exist for a course in the US (unless of course your search is for time periods that predate the airplane).  I have been amazed at how much is out there with a little digging.


Jason,

I'm new to the practice of obtaining aerials, but, If the change to the green was made within two years of the course opening, and the course opened in 1927,

What quality would you expect in the aerials taken between 1927 and 1929 ?

What quantity of aerials would you expect to find in the two year period from when the course was built in 1927 to 1929 when the change had taken place ?

Do you think that archaeology/excavation vis a vis core samples might reveal more than aerial photos with less than great resolution ?

[Tim Nugent]

Patrick, colored responses not withstanding, perhaps you assume everyone here knows what course you are referring to?  But since some of us don't, how do you expect anything more than a wid-ass guess to your querries?  There are some ok resolution aerials from the time period you speak but only in some more populated or military areas.  Black and white.

It seems you have more information than you are letting out ie. built in 27 but changed in 29.  If this is the  case, I find it interesting that you would want to restore something that evidently did not work.  Why else would they go through the time and money to change a something they just spent time and money building?  Not everything works out as you hope but you don't find this out until people start playing it and you get to see how it reacts to play.  Just because an ODA built something, that was changed almost immediately after opening, doesn't make it a candidate for restoration (if that is you main reason for this exercise).  Now if it to do an autopsy on it to see if one can identify the reason for the quick change, that's another story.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, colored responses not withstanding, perhaps you assume everyone here knows what course you are referring to?


Tim,

I didn't assume anything.
I deliberately omitted the name of the course/s, since that's irrelevant at this point.

But since some of us don't, how do you expect anything more than a wid-ass guess to your querries? 

Try employing intelligent thought.
Suffice it to say that the course was opened in the late 1920's  and that it was reported that the original green had about a two year shelf life.
There are aerial photos taken at close to the end of the two year period.  They are grainy without sharp resolution.
In addition, old member accounts seem to indicate that the original green was changed not long after the course opened.
 

There are some ok resolution aerials from the time period you speak but only in some more populated or military areas.  Black and white.

DOA aerials are probably more prevalent than DOD aerials.
We're looking for as many as can be obtained.

It seems you have more information than you are letting out ie. built in 27 but changed in 29.  If this is the  case, I find it interesting that you would want to restore something that evidently did not work. 

How do you know it didn't work ?

How do you know that the current green works ?

Why else would they go through the time and money to change a something they just spent time and money building? 
Probably for the same reasons that many clubs alter or fine tune a new golf course.
One only has to look at Friars Head or Sebonack for comparison
Are you familiar with the 16th hole at Sebonack.
It worked quite well, but, was changed.
Actually it was more than changed, it was abandoned and a new green was built further back.

Don't be so quick to draw absolute conclusions.


Not everything works out as you hope but you don't find this out until people start playing it and you get to see how it reacts to play. 

Just because an ODA built something, that was changed almost immediately after opening, doesn't make it a candidate for restoration (if that is you main reason for this exercise). 


It does if what's there today DOESN'T work, which is the case.

Now if it to do an autopsy on it to see if one can identify the reason for the quick change, that's another story.

You're assuming that the current green/s work/s.
It DOESN'T.
The original green would appear to be an improvement over the current green, hence the interest in learning more about the original green.

Remember, in 1927-1931 green speeds were minimal, and nowhere near today's 10's, 11's, 12's and 13's.
What might have worked at 6 doesn't necessarily work today at 10 or 12.
And, that's the key.
The current green is out of sync with the rest of the golf course, sorta like #  12 at GCGC.
The old green would appear to work in today's world of golf, hence the interest in the old green.

As to why the original green was changed is irrelevant, other than to satisfy one's curiosity.
What is relevant is if the original green would work today, especially since the current green doesn't work.

The more that's known about the configuration of the old green, the better position one is in to make a decision regarding what will best replace a green that doesn't work today.

Hope that helps

[Jason Topp]

Patrick:

I apolgize for not seeing your questions.  Here are my thoughts:


What quality would you expect in the aerials taken between 1927 and 1929 ?  They could be good, depending on the source.  In Minnesota, county tax assessors photos are the best quality if they are available. 

What quantity of aerials would you expect to find in the two year period from when the course was built in 1927 to 1929 when the change had taken place ?

My experience has been that it is very random.  We were able to get sufficient photos to create a contour map of a superfund site from 1915-1990 with updates every five years or so (which required two photos of the location at a particular time).  1927-29 was a relatively prosperous time in which flying was popular.  My guess is that some exist if the course is in a relatively populated area of the US.  Railroads regularly had them made of their facilities for example.  I doubt you would want to spend the money to make contour maps but a good researcher might be a relatuively inexpensive investment that could pay off.  The key is finding a good researcher - probably a grad student or a legal assistant that works for an area superfund attorney.

Do you think that archaeology/excavation vis a vis core samples might reveal more than aerial photos with less than great resolution ? [/color]
[/quote]

It might.  From the descriptions of the limitations of core sampling methodology described in this thread it sounds like you might want to pursue both options.

Patrick:

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

You can trace the edges of Raynor greens because he used a layer of cinders right to the edge of the original green perimeter. But I am not sure if he did that on all of his greens that he built througout his entire career.

In the 1950's and early 60's there was a period where greenkeepers topdressed the holes with calcined clay (a material that is like cat litter) and that stuff is easy to find, if it was used.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

Many older greens perimeters are going to be very hard to find with probing because the surface contours have been buried by so many layers of bunker sand, and it is hard to distinguish those layers, from the original topdressing layers. There are places around greens that are two and even three feet higher, from the sahara effect of bunker sand, than they were originally. If you go probing to find the original green construction layers, look for them in areas where there were no bunkers nearby.

I sometimes wonder if this is why the more exclusive clubs - the ones that had a sleepy period - are the most successful with restoration work. They just didn't have that many rounds played on them, and they haven't been buried by as much sand around the edges of the greens.

[Ian Andrew]

Pat,

At Highlands Links the greens have very different soil than the surrounds.
It made it very easy to recapture the greens since the expansions could also be confirmed by old aerial images. So yes, it can work out.

But most of the time it does not, the soil is often consistent beyond the green.

[Richard Choi]

Has anyone used something like this for this purpose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar