ASGCA Life Cycle Chart

[Ulrich Mayring]

Hi folks,
I've come across this interesting chart that details how long parts of the golf course are expected to last before reconstruction becomes necessary:
https://asgca.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/asgca-life-cycle_-_final_2014_v2.pdf
Would you generally agree with these assessments, especially with respect to greens?
A few local clubs here are either planning or have completed rebuilding their greens and the super's statement in all cases was uniformly: greens last about 20 years and there is nothing you can do to make them last longer. I have played on those "expired" greens and to me they were perfectly fine. Upon asking I was told that yes, they played fine, but required too much maintenance and the risk of having to completely rebuild them (vs. only replacing the top layers) would increase every year.

Now, obviously, there are a lot of courses out there with much older greens. Is this a question of the climate or the grasses (fescue vs bent) or construction technique (USGA vs push-up) or more one of maintenance practices?
Ulrich

[Mike_Young]

Ulrich,I'm sure a few are expecting my reply so here it is.  ASGCA is a fraternity with the sole purpose of trying to promote it's members and in order to do so it creates articles and charts and various other methods that would try to elevate their member in the eyes of a club or supt.  While there may be a few legitimate points in the article/brochure, most of it is BS hype. 

In the south, the greens can last much longer based on the agronomic practices of the specific supt or if a bent to bermuda conversion is done they can last even longer since bermuda like water closer to the surface etc.  Many of the other items listed in their article are just a matter of what a course can afford and often such articles are used as a basis for convincing a memebrship or backing a supt to get a Lexus when a Toyota would do. 

Today, as it has been forever, find a good, smart, working supt. who will question the BS and doesn't fall for Associations and your course will not have half of these questions or problems and your budget will appreciate him.  ASGCA is just trying to justify a club bringing one of their dudes there....and if one shows up in the jacket, watch out...that's worse than the 60 year old dude wearing his SAE ring..

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ulrich,


Terry Buchen wrote another version in Golf Course Industry Magazine, which breaks down norther and southern climates, which is probably newer, and better.  I think his timelines are a bit longer.  For one, up north he lists push up greens as having 50 year life spans, although, IMHO, that would be true at 10K round private club courses more than 40K round munis, for example.


I may present one or both lists in speeches or master plans, but take care to note that most courses exceed those limits greatly, due to financial reasons.


In theory, a good sand in a sand based green doesn't change characteristics. You might need to scrape off the root layer, try to match the sand and mix it in, etc.  But, if a bad sand was used to save initial cost, I have seen those plug up to the point of being beyond repair in 20 years or so.  If you are a long time frame owner, it usually pays off long run to build well, which can eliminate some, but not all of the need to retire and replace stuff.

Every course is different and needs to be studied for what is really out there, not some generalized chart. 

[/size][/color]

But, I have seen some weird recommendations over the years.  If you do a soil test, and it shows drainage of 1" per hour, some agronomists will go over the top to save the green.  My experience is that kind of plugged up drainage is beyond repair. That is the kind of thing the chart is supposed to call attention to.

Now, on that list, the re-grassing, bunker drainage, and a few other things I have found to be right on.  Bad draining sand and no liners in sand bunkers clog up within a few years.  Even then, a low end course may be willing to put up with poa annua in the greens forever.  The 12-15 year limit to re-grass is probably something that upper end courses would adhere to, but the mom and pop muni would ignore.  So, besides physical situation, fiscal situation plays a part, as do expectations of golfers.


The chart serves a purpose, but can be misused (and I have seen it misused by ASGCA members AND others).  Please try to ignore Mike Y's typical BS.  Seems he ate crabby-O's for breakfast.

[Mike_Young]

Hey Jeff,
I had a bet I could get you to respond first....we'll split it....are you still in ASGCA?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Please donate my half of the winnings to the ASGCA foundation, thanks.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


Please donate my half of the winnings to the ASGCA foundation, thanks.

Hmmm...can't do that...

[Ulrich Mayring]

What is is with all those links courses on the British Isles that have ancient greens? Is it the climate combined with fescue?
I've recently played a fairly affordable public course here in Germany with fescue greens. The area has 50-80mm of rain per month, so that is slightly more than London or Liverpool get. If those greens last longer than 20 years, then it seems to be a fairly good investment, because they also putt like a dream!
Ulrich

[Tom_Doak]

Ulrich:


Indeed, if every course had to follow the guidelines suggested, most would be out of business.  Think of them more as a wish list from architects and builders.

[Joe Hancock]

If we let nature take care of the soil, it gets better over time, but, when left to the hand of man, we have to replace it every 20 years or so.

[Peter Pallotta]

If we let nature take care of the soil, it gets better over time, but, when left to the hand of man, we have to replace it every 20 years or so.

If you ever had the time, Joe, it would be great if you could 'unpack' this statement and 'reverse engineer' it in terms of a golf course's conception, design and construction (including the irrigation system).

Because to me it says that the more soil (and turf and sand and greens) there is for the hand of man to take care of, and the more intentionally a course is conceived and designed and built with this very type of maintenance involved, the less sustainable it is, now and in 5 & 10 & 20 years.

To put it bluntly: if what you say is true (and because it's coming from you I assume it is), then it is -- or should be -- a game changer.

I'm not holding my breath for the game to change

P

[Mike_Young]

If we let nature take care of the soil, it gets better over time, but, when left to the hand of man, we have to replace it every 20 years or so.

If you ever had the time, Joe, it would be great if you could 'unpack' this statement and 'reverse engineer' it in terms of a golf course's conception, design and construction (including the irrigation system).

Because to me it says that the more soil (and turf and sand and greens) there is for the hand of man to take care of, and the more intentionally a course is conceived and designed and built with this very type of maintenance involved, the less sustainable it is, now and in 5 & 10 & 20 years.

To put it too bluntly: if what you say is true (and because it's coming from you I assume it is), the more it is -- or should be -- a game changer.

I'm not holding my breath for the game to change


P

Peter,I think a good way to say what Joe is saying is that golf is sort of like a banana tree.  Bananas aren't meant to be grown all of the place but we can.  And when we do it is often not practical.

[Peter Pallotta]

Edited.

[Joe Hancock]

Peter,


Thanks for the prod...after I went back and read what I worte, I realize it is a pithy statement without a lot of context or direction.


Interesting that you added irrigation systems into your query. That was almost entirely my main thought as I wrote what I did. Irrigation water causes compaction, often reduces microbial activity (along with many pesticide applications) and conditions grass plants to behave in unnatural ways, IMO. Those little, microscopic critters not only affect things like nutrient uptake and disease resistance, but I also firmly believe they are a factor in drainage characteristics. So, the more we do as humans to provide “perfect” conditioning, the more the soil suffers from unnatural characteristics.


There’s other factors that affect soils....mowing, rolling, foot traffic, cart traffic....a bunch of things that we have come to expect on golf courses. So my main point is really that all the things that cause us trouble with our golf soils are human choices.


I get it....there’s golfers’ expectations, commercial and professional pressures to keep “advancing” the art of greenkeeping, desire to keep ones job, etc. The soil isn’t unaffected by all of the above.

[Peter Pallotta]

Joe, Mike - thanks.
The extreme view, because the extreme view isn't always or necessarily wrong:
If a golf course can't be designed & built with -- and later maintained using only -- a single-row irrigation system, then it probably shouldn't be built at all. If it needs more than that, then it means that the climate/region isn't fit for golf, and/or that the soil isn't suited to the game's needs, and/or that neither the client nor the architect knew or cared enough to conceive of a great design that put sustainability and ideal playing surfaces on par with vistas and width and '18 great holes', and/or that all the industry types involved in the project collectively decided to take the money and run -- long-term consequences and even the course's mid-term/first owner viability be damned.
As I say, the extreme view, which isn't always and necessarily wrong.
P

[Mike_Young]

Peter,I think your description of the extreme view is probably a good place to start.