News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
USGA vs Push Up Greens
« on: December 20, 2016, 09:57:43 AM »
Tony Nysse wrote: "Many members and golfers "believe" in USGA greens. I know here in FL, and also from working in SC, having greens that can get moisture through the profile and into the drains quickly is vital to the success of the putting surface. "Push up" greens have all different types of meanings. A push up green of 80 years ago consisted of just that, pushed up soil. The push up type greens of today tend t be mad of native material, but is spec'd and blended."


I have long wondered about the two kinds of green construction. I belonged to a mid-atlantic club that was built around 1995 with greens constructed to USGA specs. They took a lot of tender love and care. In August you could see the stress on the greens. They remained good just very stressed. These greens can get as quick as anyone would want them to be, although in the summer they tend to stay around a stimped 9. These greens get soft in the summer due to the amount of water they seem to need.


I live at a little resort that was built around 1970. It has push up greens. They have never been replaced. They are aerated once a year in the spring and sometimes also in the fall. The course has only a fraction of the budget the other club has. The course is in the the VA mts so the nights get cool even in the dog days of summer. We never have any trouble with them however, they never get lightning quick. At best they can get them to 9.5 or 10. Mostly they stay around 9. These greens remain firm the entire summer.


Do many new courses go the way of push up greens? Why or why not?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 06:09:56 PM by Tommy Williamsen »
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2016, 10:08:39 AM »

With very good confidence, some of our favorite architects on this site utilize a modified USGA green or push up using local sands. It allows for more creativity and adjustment during the greens building. 
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2016, 10:17:08 AM »
Tommy,

There's many more than two types of greens construction. You also have California, Purrwick, FLL and others.

I guess a confident architect doesn't automatically fall back on the crutch that is the USGA recommendation and chooses the best methodology (or mixed methodology) that best suits the site.... in fact, I was taught that the really confident architect should use the methodology that best suits each green site, even if that is different throughout the course.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2016, 10:19:50 AM »
Does location help determine the kind of green construction and grass used? I know the mid-atlantic region is a difficult place to grow grass. One of my clubs in the DC area regrassed with Declaration and the other L93. The L93 has thatch trouble while the Declaration seems to have trouble growing deep roots.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #4 on: December 20, 2016, 10:45:22 AM »
Tommy:


I generally prefer to build greens out of native soils when we are working in good, sandy soil.  It's way easier to shape and get just what you want, and there is no need to build a "perched water table" in most climates, which was originally one of the main appeals of a USGA green.


In the old days, many "push-up" greens were built on soils ranging from sand to loam to clay, relying mostly on good surface drainage to prevent disease pressure.  This is much harder to do nowadays, when you have to build the greens flatter because of modern speeds, and cut them lower which increases disease pressure.  It's also harder to build them reliably, because the soils can vary so much from place to place over a site, and because working with heavier soils can lead to compaction when it's too wet, etc.  [I think that secretly, one of the main reasons for the USGA green spec was so that contractors could build them in any weather conditions, instead of having to delay completion if the weather didn't suit.]


And absolutely, to answer your last question, different cultivars of grass are chosen based on sub-region, although with new cultivars it usually takes a few years to figure out what works best in a given area, and which ones have more trouble.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #5 on: December 20, 2016, 10:58:29 AM »
 8)


We built a new green (#16 ) about 17 years ago at GB.  Can't believe it seems like yesterday.  It was my first green and thankfully I had some of the best helpers ever .


Out course dates back to the 1920's so push up was the method employed .


Didn't want to make it too much different so used a dirty mix and modified USGA spec . Had some concerns it would drain a little faster than the others and in fact it does , but not too different after lots of soil amendments to the others.


Even though it was December we stripped the green we were replacing and reset the sod on the new one . Probably beginners luck but it turned out perfect . It seems trivial but using the existing sod again made a huge difference. 


It seems in our area ( mid-Atlantic) the USGA spec method works pretty well. Some of the guys who did the California method found they just drained out way too fast. Of course the medium you are working with (soils) can vary dramatically from one site to the next.  It's important to analyze this early in the process .





Tom alluded to the grass you choose but it's hard to find one here that rolls better than the poa bent mutts that have evolved . Shame they generally aren't as hardy as those at Oakmont , which remain a marvel to me !
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 11:03:37 AM by archie_struthers »

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #6 on: December 20, 2016, 11:50:37 AM »



To all reading - enjoy the comments - but if you have a real project go find someone whose expertise is soils.
There's so much more to this than that a decision between two or three construction methods.

I can't speak for the other architect's on site, but I don't pick construction methods or turf species.
They both have a massive impact on maintenance, so I leave that to those who will have to deliver the expected conditions.
I've worked with native, push up, California, amended USGA - it doesn't really matter - the less layers the easier to build.

What I do is remind them of impacts on how construction will be done and details required with each decision they make.
Like what happens when you place two different soils up against each other.
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2016, 12:08:27 AM »
I much prefer FLL though in the end the most important thing is percolation rates. The other advantage of FLL is it is generally cheaper to produce rootzone making building in a layer of at least 50cm (20") much more cost effective.


Jon

Greg Chambers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #8 on: December 21, 2016, 01:24:59 AM »
The USGA did a fantastic job of coming up with a green construction specification.  The most difficult set of greens I ever managed were USGA specification greens.  Take it with a grain of salt.
"It's good sportsmanship to not pick up lost golf balls while they are still rolling.”

Dave McCollum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #9 on: December 21, 2016, 07:29:41 AM »
Before I knew much about golf design and construction, I built three greens.  My experience makes me an endorser of Ian’s advice.  I had as good of help as was available locally—soil testing, my supers, a free lance super turned landscaper, construction folk, the pro, and even a USGA greens guy who lives here.  Two were push up and the other a modified USGA, all built at different times.  One push up went well.  The other push up had real problems during grow-in because of some serious errors in the green mix that ended up requiring lots of soil amendment and re-seeding.   The modified USDA is by a wide margin our most problematic green on the property and has problems most years.  Most of the property is sand based and drains well.  If I have to do it again, I’ll get better experts and lobby for keeping things as simple as possible.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2016, 09:10:29 AM »
In some cases, the USGA method is utilized to avoid any liability for a failed green. Like it or not, the USGA green has become an internationally accepted standard for construction. If an architect or builder chooses another method without first recommending USGA and the greens fail he may well be accused of negligence. I've seen this happen even when the green didn't fail.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #11 on: December 21, 2016, 09:55:42 AM »

To all reading - enjoy the comments - but if you have a real project go find someone whose expertise is soils.
There's so much more to this than that a decision between two or three construction methods.



I've seen various concoctions of turf consultants and superintendents fail, too.  When we rebuilt the 5th and 14th greens at Garden City years ago, we had lots of expert advice, but the results have never been up to par.  That's the personal experience that made me a skeptic of trying to "match" old greens mix.

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #12 on: December 21, 2016, 11:11:24 AM »
What is the relative cost of the different methods? My experience from over 10 years ago was that USGA spec greens in the mid-Atlantic area were more than double the cost of push-up or California greens.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #13 on: December 21, 2016, 11:14:21 AM »
Do both kinds of greens need similar maintenance? Do they have similar aeration and topdressing needs?
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #14 on: December 21, 2016, 11:26:56 AM »
A USGA green, in theory, makes water management much more predictable by, essentially, holding water until the root zone is saturated, at which time the excess water pushes itself into the drainage pipes. The tradeoff is that nutrient management becomes an exercise in small dose applications because the soil is ill-fit to retain the nutrients. Also, and not very often mentioned, the sandy root zone of a USGA green isn't a great place for microbial proliferation...an essential part of healthy plants, IMO.

A push-up green is almost always the opposite; very good for nutrient management due to it's organic content, while suffering from water management due to slower, and less predictable drainage capabilities.

Both have success and failure records. My experience with push-ups is far greater than with USGA greens. What I often witness out in the field is the guys with USGA greens don't often take advantage of it's built-in quality of water management; that is, that they don't load up the root zone with water until it is saturated throughout....they still hand-water the surface of the green frequently, and I wonder what the benefit is of doing things that way. I truly don't know, so if any of you guys with USGA greens can tell me why it wouldn't be better to irrigate heavily, to the point of saturation, and then leave things alone until it's time to do it again....I'm all ears!

I have seen very good presentations in many construction variations, but I don't think there is a "silver bullet" method that works perfectly in all situations or locations.

And, Steve Okula's contribution above is the reality by which most decisions are made when building new greens, although I've stuck my neck out a few times and varied from the norm. Just recently I was involved with building a green with a sand/ compost blend installed directly over fine-slit drain pipe( similar to XGD, only 4" in diameter) with no gravel layer. Time will tell!
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2016, 11:31:14 AM »
BS to USGA green....In theory there is a give and take of 1/2 inch tolerance of the parallel layers in a USGA green thus when you find one with the root zone 20 inches deep in one place and 12 in another and 30 in another, you really don't have the USGA green that you were thinking you had.  The problem is most don't know this until the problem arises and it is either measured or dug up.  For me,  I'm not sure there was ever a set of 18 true USGA greens built within tolerance.  But for years so many supts felt the solution to the problems was the USGA green.  That seems to have subsided some now. 
The new ultra dwarf bermudas seem to like the water up near the top of the mix where the bents were wanting it to go deep so some of the older greens which were presenting problems for bent will work just fine for the bermuda.
But at the end of the day, find the right supt and he can grow it on concrete.  And as Ian suggest, let that supt hire a soil expert or whatever he needs to get the conditions he wants.  And lastly,  lot of this stuff can be solved with height of cut.  It has caused a lot of these problems all by itself.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2016, 12:26:19 PM »

BS to USGA green....In theory there is a give and take of 1/2 inch tolerance of the parallel layers in a USGA green thus when you find one with the root zone 20 inches deep in one place and 12 in another and 30 in another, you really don't have the USGA green that you were thinking you had.  The problem is most don't know this until the problem arises and it is either measured or dug up.  For me,  I'm not sure there was ever a set of 18 true USGA greens built within tolerance.  But for years so many supts felt the solution to the problems was the USGA green.  That seems to have subsided some now. 
The new ultra dwarf bermudas seem to like the water up near the top of the mix where the bents were wanting it to go deep so some of the older greens which were presenting problems for bent will work just fine for the bermuda.
But at the end of the day, find the right supt and he can grow it on concrete.  And as Ian suggest, let that supt hire a soil expert or whatever he needs to get the conditions he wants.  And lastly,  lot of this stuff can be solved with height of cut.  It has caused a lot of these problems all by itself.


 I cant say I agree with much of what's said here. Our old greens were GPS'ed to the 1/10' of an inch prior to construction. Our drainage and pea gravel were laid into the cavity, constantly checked for depth. Our 85/15 mix was put in and compacted with various techniques to 12". All the depths were check after water packing and all new grades were shot to match previous grades. It's tedious, but possible. Our moisture levels range from 10%-14% on average. 


Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2016, 01:53:32 PM »
I found this article from 2000.  Some interesting discussion and looks like a few GCA peeps contributed in the comments.


Any thoughts on what we know now vs then?


http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/2000sep30a.pdf

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2016, 02:13:46 PM »

BS to USGA green....In theory there is a give and take of 1/2 inch tolerance of the parallel layers in a USGA green thus when you find one with the root zone 20 inches deep in one place and 12 in another and 30 in another, you really don't have the USGA green that you were thinking you had.  The problem is most don't know this until the problem arises and it is either measured or dug up.  For me,  I'm not sure there was ever a set of 18 true USGA greens built within tolerance.  But for years so many supts felt the solution to the problems was the USGA green.  That seems to have subsided some now. 
The new ultra dwarf bermudas seem to like the water up near the top of the mix where the bents were wanting it to go deep so some of the older greens which were presenting problems for bent will work just fine for the bermuda.
But at the end of the day, find the right supt and he can grow it on concrete.  And as Ian suggest, let that supt hire a soil expert or whatever he needs to get the conditions he wants.  And lastly,  lot of this stuff can be solved with height of cut.  It has caused a lot of these problems all by itself.


 I cant say I agree with much of what's said here. Our old greens were GPS'ed to the 1/10' of an inch prior to construction. Our drainage and pea gravel were laid into the cavity, constantly checked for depth. Our 85/15 mix was put in and compacted with various techniques to 12". All the depths were check after water packing and all new grades were shot to match previous grades. It's tedious, but possible. Our moisture levels range from 10%-14% on average. 




Tony,
That's great.  But I still think you are the exception regarding tolerances.  Although it may be closer in renovation than in new construction.  Oh well....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2016, 02:23:09 PM »

BS to USGA green....In theory there is a give and take of 1/2 inch tolerance of the parallel layers in a USGA green thus when you find one with the root zone 20 inches deep in one place and 12 in another and 30 in another, you really don't have the USGA green that you were thinking you had.  The problem is most don't know this until the problem arises and it is either measured or dug up.  For me,  I'm not sure there was ever a set of 18 true USGA greens built within tolerance.  But for years so many supts felt the solution to the problems was the USGA green.  That seems to have subsided some now. 
The new ultra dwarf bermudas seem to like the water up near the top of the mix where the bents were wanting it to go deep so some of the older greens which were presenting problems for bent will work just fine for the bermuda.
But at the end of the day, find the right supt and he can grow it on concrete.  And as Ian suggest, let that supt hire a soil expert or whatever he needs to get the conditions he wants.  And lastly,  lot of this stuff can be solved with height of cut.  It has caused a lot of these problems all by itself.


 I cant say I agree with much of what's said here. Our old greens were GPS'ed to the 1/10' of an inch prior to construction. Our drainage and pea gravel were laid into the cavity, constantly checked for depth. Our 85/15 mix was put in and compacted with various techniques to 12". All the depths were check after water packing and all new grades were shot to match previous grades. It's tedious, but possible. Our moisture levels range from 10%-14% on average. 




Tony,
That's great.  But I still think you are the exception regarding tolerances.  Although it may be closer in renovation than in new construction.  Oh well....

Each green was demolished, raised to a grade we knew was above water table and then rebuilt entirely. Multiple greens were raised 12-18" and THEN rebuilt to USGA specs. Our greens were reconstructed during our renovation.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 02:29:56 PM by Anthony_Nysse »
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2016, 02:38:36 PM »
Tony,
I think when a supt is there on the site as the green is being built there is a much better chance of being within tolerance.  JMO
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #21 on: December 21, 2016, 03:40:56 PM »
Tony,
I think when a supt is there on the site as the green is being built there is a much better chance of being within tolerance.  JMO


MY-yes, 100% agreed. We are left with the product for the next 20+ years, so we picked our contractors carefully, but we're always double checking the work.
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2016, 06:51:38 PM »

 What I often witness out in the field is the guys with USGA greens don't often take advantage of it's built-in quality of water management; that is, that they don't load up the root zone with water until it is saturated throughout....they still hand-water the surface of the green frequently, and I wonder what the benefit is of doing things that way. I truly don't know, so if any of you guys with USGA greens can tell me why it wouldn't be better to irrigate heavily, to the point of saturation, and then leave things alone until it's time to do it again....I'm all ears!


Joe,

I took over a private club with an impatient, demanding membership and USGA greens (more or less) with 50% Poa annua and 50% Penncross.

We hand water dry spots every summer to preserve the Poa, which as you know is much more shallow rooted than the bentgrass.

Please don't tell me that I need to educate the membership on deep, infrequent watering, and bearing with the transition, because you have no idea how passionately stubborn the members are at a French country club.

Besides that, the greens don't dry out uniformly, probably because the mix isn't homogenous. We get localized dry spots that once developed are with us through the season and hand watering, needle tining, wetting agents, etc. are necessary to preserve putting surface consistency.

Further, we have a lot of very steep bunker slopes close to the greens, and if I run the sprinklers too long we're looking at washouts and the resulting contamination from the underlying clay will block drainage and cause puddling. But I expect that a new irrigation system and some bunker liners both presently in the pipeline will mitigate that situation.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2016, 07:22:13 PM »


I'm not sure there was ever a set of 18 true USGA greens built within tolerance.  But for years so many supts felt the solution to the problems was the USGA green.

Mike,

I'm truly amazed when you say such nonsense. 

I know I shoot the grades of the sub-grade with a laser. I rake and shoot the gravel myself (ask any of my clients - it gets screwed up there more often than the final stage with the drainage install) and then shoot grades on the surface after probing the profile for depth.  If your not doing that, you're not building a USGA green.

I've yet to go on a site of another architect where this is not happening, It may not be the architect in all instances, but there's always someone in the team who watches this like a hawk. For one thing greens mix and gravel is so frickin' expensive that you can't afford to be long and since clubs up here always buy materials ... they better not be short.

The more I think about this, the more I laugh. I've pulled apart dozens of greens and I've yet to see one come close to 18" or 6" of mix like you imply. In most instances the construction is perfect ... other issues are the problem.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 07:34:25 PM by Ian Andrew »
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Ian Andrew

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2016, 07:30:43 PM »

I've seen various concoctions of turf consultants and superintendents fail, too.  When we rebuilt the 5th and 14th greens at Garden City years ago, we had lots of expert advice, but the results have never been up to par.  That's the personal experience that made me a skeptic of trying to "match" old greens mix.



Worst thing I ever saw - fortunately not my project - was a clay site with natural sand in one quadrant. The consultants all agreed that it could be used for greens, but nobody sent it out to a lab. It drained great, but nobody knew the particle was too round. Right from the outset it had turf, but try drive a sprayer or take a riding mower on top and you had wheel imprints.

Not an impossible fix, the dryjected a course sand into the profile for a couple of years and it solved the problem. The Owner had everyone responsible  for the decision to use on site sand share the bill.



« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 07:33:18 PM by Ian Andrew »
With every golf development bubble, the end was unexpected and brutal....

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back