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.


Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2016, 07:40:33 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.



Steve,


I'm the last guy to advise you on how to educate a membership, let alone how to maintain a set of USGA greens. I'm just curious about the issues that cause superintendents to stray from the engineering intent of that type of green. You've highlighted a couple things I hadn't realized.


Thanks
" 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 #26 on: December 21, 2016, 10:07:34 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.

Ian,

I don't call it nonsense.

While agreeing to disagree, I consider it nonsense that someone actually thinks there is a set of USGA greens out there that are conssitent within the 1/2 inch tolerance recommendation. 

"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 think what you are doing is great if you are on site and can do that.  I have always shot my gravel layer and am familiar with everything you are describing.  And as you say "if you are not doing that you are not building a USGA green" is EXACTLY what I am saying.  If you are one inch out or two inches out then you are not building a USGA green and I will wager $1000 I can go on any USGA green course and find areas of a green with an inch or two less or an inch or two more in the root zone.  It just happens.
Many of our industry experts will call these faux pas a "MODIFIED USGA green" which is another word for "we just adjusted what we needed to make it work while using a gravel layer with a herringbone system."

"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."

Come on Ian...I got in the business selling irrigation etc and I saw plenty of construction jobs where the architect showed up once or twice a month and if he wished to adjust a green he did in the top layer.  And the contractor was not being that careful with it either.
I actually hired the construction arm of a huge signature who had just finished building a golf trail here in the south to help us finsih a project one time.  I went on site one day and they were trenching the drains into the green base with an 18 inch bucket and filling with gravel.  How much you think that cost?  A few days later they told me they were ordering sand and would be ready to place the root zone.  I told them I would be there in two days and they informed me "they could be finished with 9 holes by then.  It completely freaked me out but since then I have seen some of their previous greens and the depths of sand etc.  For you,  you just haven't come across such as of now.  It's out there.   

"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."

Ian, I'm glad you have the good fortune to just pull apart good greens.  But it is naive to think what I describe is not there.  I am glad to show you or name courses where the "USGA" greens designed by "signature" and " signature golf pro" architects have had over 30 inches of mix.  And I know plenty where there has been less than 12 inches especially in greens with tiers.   I know several signature archies who will sit there and say "I'm adjusting this in the final float" and then have a trailer of sand brought in and work it to get the final float they wish. 
Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying it is ok to do so. I'm saying it happens.  And because of that many are more comfortable with a California green where the final float can be adjusted and the layers don't have to be an exact parallel.  USGA greens are idealistic creatures but rarely are they, if ever, realistic creatures IMHO.

I'm not spouting nonsense....you just haven't seen it.

« Last Edit: December 21, 2016, 10:36:52 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2016, 08:45:11 AM »

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.



I've worked with push-ups, California and USGA spec greens over the years and have come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter which way you go provided it works for the site; by that I mean the requirements of the club (projected green speeds & play), the environment it'll be in and the (micro)climate. Take an area with minimal rain and a decent free draining soil, in that scenario why would you need to build a green out of anything else, however since these locations are not prolific the other options need to be looked into.

In some ways California greens are not hugely different to maintain than a USGA green as other than the lack of a perched water table they are free draining; however since the top few inches are supposed to be modified to help the turf grow, they act somewhat like a modified rootzone albeit one where all the soil started as free draining and was modified to hold water (as opposed to a usual modified green where it didn't drain and was modified with a more free draining soil). The biggest difference is the California will drain as the lower section is free draining. However having a modified layer on top that with maturity will naturally grow into the mat layer will also create somewhat of a perched water table. However in most cases this is a perfectly suitable medium to grow grass as there is enough organic to hold nutrients and enough free draining medium to get the water to pass through (assuming a push-up is modified enough to be free draining). For watering they get what they need and hopefully they are free draining enough to handle excess amounts.

As for the USGA, I think a lot of "problems" with them are with the way they're managed. It takes a large amount of faith to flood a wet green when it's hot and humid out to make it drain......

When managed properly a USGA green is the best type of green build as you have a little more control over the water, but as I mentioned above it is not necessarily needed. Saying that a USGA green is not without its foibles. As with any green it will produce thatch which even when managed properly will create a mat layer that can result in the green holding some water up top and therefore acting like the ones I mentioned in the last paragraph.

The perched water table design works at holding water really well to the point that they can stay wet if not regularly flushed. I saw this in Ireland where their need is questionable. Ok the climate there definitely dictates the need for a sand based free draining medium but the issue is the rain is never high enough to 'flush' the green. To use a toilet analogy when you urinate into the toilet, the urine stays until you flush, which floods the system which removes everything. It's a slightly simplistic explanation but a USGA green works the same way. In Ireland the moisture would build up but never reach the point where it would push. The guys that understood that had great greens but there are many greens there that were far from their best. The same goes for the middle of a mid Atlantic summer, a storm comes through floods everything but not enough to flush. It is very difficult to turn the water on after that to push it out, especially as you want everything drier to prevent further problems like increased disease pressure / scald etc (and lets not discuss the members thinking you're crazy for watering after a storm.......).

The drainage vents need to be open to make sure the water can pass though otherwise it would be like a finger on top of a straw and prevent the water from flowing out. Although that applies to all drainage systems.

Lastly it takes a lot of water to flush a USGA spec green. There are water savings in the regular maintenance as they don't require a large amount of water day to day but a flush can take upwards of 1.5" of precipitation. I've also found that they need a brief charge the night before a deep cycle, otherwise a large amount of water will run off.

To answer Joes question on a USGA green; you load the system up, preferably to right before it flushes and then dry it down until it is universally dry. For the last few days it might require some handwatering to make sure the hotspots make it. Syringing can still be necessary on hot days to keep the turf cool if it is transpiring faster than it can take water up. Once the green is universally dry then the cycle starts again. Flushing will depend on need but generally once a month is good enough. Poor water quality may increase that frequency. Personally I usually do it after a topdressing so it washes it in too. Since the flush removes water from the green the action pulls air through the profile behind the water so the green usually dries out a little sooner than a regular deep water.

The sandier (ie more free draining soil) the better for greens. USGA specs just provide a little more control over the water inputs but depending on location they are not necessarily the best or required. On going maintenance of any green is essential to make sure they perform as the should but a sand based green is at it's best the day it is seeded and it slowly deteriorates from there as the roots grow and fill in the pore spaces which slows the drainage.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2016, 08:53:16 AM by Alan FitzGerald »
Golf construction & maintenance are like creating a masterpiece; Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa's eyes first..... You start with the backdrop, layer on the detail and fine tune the finished product into a masterpiece

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2016, 12:11:03 PM »

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.


On going maintenance of any green is essential to make sure they perform as the should but a sand based green is at it's best the day it is seeded and it slowly deteriorates from there as the roots grow and fill in the pore spaces which slows the drainage.

Ding ding ding...This is the thing that is never discussed much.  How many clubs can really afford to tear up 18 greens every 20 years,... down time, materials and grow-in.....and when the perc rate slows things change if you are using the perched table method....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2016, 01:18:49 PM »

I think its a good method, but there are ways to manage if you don't have them.  And, I recall the USGA noting that the greens rate failure is about 1-2% of courses each year, regardless of green construction. 


Unusual heat and cold are the prime factors in dead turf. in the vast majority of cases. That doesn't stop supers from getting the axe.  I recall my first job was the result of a cold freeze in DFW the year I moved down here.  Every course in town with Bermuda greens and fairways was dead.  That didn't stop my greens chair from asking if I was sure it wasn't a misapplied chemical that killed their greens. ::)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Alan FitzGerald CGCS MG

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #30 on: December 23, 2016, 12:01:42 PM »

Ding ding ding...This is the thing that is never discussed much.  How many clubs can really afford to tear up 18 greens every 20 years,... down time, materials and grow-in.....and when the perc rate slows things change if you are using the perched table method....

The perched water table has nothing to do with the drainage slowing, this would be the case for any green as the organic builds up. A mat layer can have more fines in it which can create a perched water table at the interface between it and the original rootzone; again this can happen in any construction type. Rebuilding every 20 years is really only an option when money is no option or the greens have completely failed.   There are plenty of courses out there that are older than that and have greens that perform well, it's just that they don't drain as well as a new one. Provided the aggressiveness of the maintenance practices (aeration, topdressing etc) keeps up with the maturing then the greens will perform well indefinitely.

If the drainage was compromised enough, removing the organic (mat layer) is a less expensive option than rebuilding, provided the original mix wasn't compromised and drainage (lines and stone) still perform well. This would require removing the surface and the mat layer (ie the built up layer on top), tying the surface back into the surrounds and seeding/sodding the greens surface.
Golf construction & maintenance are like creating a masterpiece; Da Vinci didn't paint the Mona Lisa's eyes first..... You start with the backdrop, layer on the detail and fine tune the finished product into a masterpiece

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #31 on: December 23, 2016, 01:22:54 PM »
Alan,
I did not mean to sound as if the perched water table had anything to do with slowing.  I was/am saying that the key to the USGA green is the perched water table and when it the organic matter within the rootzone begins to change the way speed then "loading" becomes another issue and while one may still grow on such a green he may not be able to use it as intended.  The new ultradwarfs don here are often being topdressed with fines which are creating  few issues prematurely.

I agree with you regarding the mat layer.  Three times we have removed the top 4 inches and replaced with a suitable root zone material.  Seems to work fine but still have the grow-in down time.  And that is an expensive option for daily fee vs. a member course.
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #32 on: December 23, 2016, 01:42:13 PM »
Heres some food for thought...

USGA Greens and The Emperor's New Clothes
Armen Suny

In Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, two weavers promise to make the Emperor a set of clothes, that only the privileged or enlightened can see. There is a child that cries out “But he isn’t wearing anything at all.”

For decades now, the USGA, with its naked greens construction method, has bullied courses and Architects into the most expensive green construction method in common use with no empirical evidence that its method is better. We are supposed to blindly go along with their green construction method despite the fact that with their tens of millions of dollars spent on research, that they have not adequately investigated alternative green construction methods. Yes, there have been studies but as we all know, research has become highly politicized and results can, unfortunately be based upon funding and future funding.

Typical USGA Greens construction can cost anywhere from three to six dollars per square foot more than other construction methods. If we use five dollars for the sake of our discussion and assume 120,000 square feet of greens, they will add $600,000 to the cost of construction. If we use typical “ball park” golf development/operations numbers, each $100,000 of construction cost equates to $1 of greens fees. So the USGA's pressure on Architects and the golfing public has caused an average increase in green fees of $6 per round. Is this good for golf? The USGA will put forth the suggestion that other green construction methods are unproven and costlier to maintain. It simply is untrue. If USGA greens are truly superior and the only way to insure success, why don't the USGA's favorite venues for US Opens all have USGA greens?

The USGA is just like the two weavers in Andersen’s tale. The USGA green is just like the Emperor’s new clothes and I am like the child, only my cry is, “But it makes no agronomic sense and cost too much to build.” The USGA has stood by its guns with each version of its latest recasting of the specifications. Let me ask the question, what percentage of USGA greens have been rebuilt? Is the IRS correct in letting us depreciate USGA greens over 30 years? They won’t let us depreciate a push-up green. Can one green construction method be right for the entire world? It may not be right for anything! The USGA keeps telling us that the Emperor’s clothes are beautiful and that furthermore, that if we disagree that we are heretics and bad for the monarchy of golf.

Dr. Michael Hurdzan and I have had discussions for years about his righteous attempts to look at other green construction methods. His has been a lone voice in the industry to challenge the USGA green. What Mike and I have disagreed on was sterile green mixes as a growing medium. He is an advocate of straight sand California type greens and I am an advocate of green construction methods tailored to the specific agronomic conditions and always adding life and nutrient reserves to soil mixes.

Let me explain to you, that I grew up growing grass on push up greens in the Philadelphia area at Aronimink, Merion, and Rolling Green. And that then I had push up greens at Cherry Hills, inferior USGA Greens at Castle Pines, and USGA greens at Shadow Creek. I’ve grown grass in lots of different places on lots of different soil and construction types. I generally found that if your water was good, adequate surface drainage, and you had lots of sun and air movement, that virtually any green construction method was acceptable.

As a turf consultant, I used to enjoy taking Superintendents to one of their better USGA greens and looking at the collar on the far side of the green that got very little traffic and then looking at the adjacent men’s tee that got a lot of traffic. Invariably the highly trafficked tee turf, that often had the same grass, mowing height, and schedule as the green collar was in far better condition even though it was typically built with less grade, often no drainage, and only 4-6 inches of sand. The tee construction cost 25% of the green construction and was in better shape. I used to ask Superintendents if maybe we should start building the greens like the tees so that they would be in better shape and cost less to build. They would usually pause and then start regurgitating what they had learned in school. Maybe we should teach deductive reasoning as a turf course.

What I am about to expound upon is part conjecture and all opinion on my part. The concept behind the USGA green was to build a green that could be saturated from a rain event or by over irrigation from man and still provided an acceptable putting surface. They also wanted a green that could be irrigated with low quality water and still support turf life.

So logically, they piled some sandy materials on top of gravel and assumed that things would drain. Well it didn’t work. The sand on top of the gravel created a false water table, later renamed a perched water table because it sounded better. So instead of going back to the drawing board, to create a construction method that would drain and not create a false water table, these scientists started touting the virtues of a “perched” water table and how this was the ideal method of growing grass.

Now, nowhere have I ever seen their proof for this statement that we have all come to regard as the “Holy Grail” of green construction. A false water table is not the ideal method of growing grass. In all of agriculture, other than rice patties, I am unaware of any other growth system in agriculture that relies on a false water table.

Many Superintendents have come to realize that in order for a USGA green to drain, that you have to fill up much of the big pore spaces of the sand with water until the weight of the water and gravity cause the false water table to be broken. At that time the green will start to drain and the pore spaces will be filled with atmosphere.

Now we have many courses hooking up vacuum systems to their USGA greens to break the perched water table and pull the water out of the green. So, we designed and constructed a green with a perched water table and then because we don’t want the water there, we vacuum it out. Does my earlier statement about a deductive reasoning class being a requirement in a turf education start sounding more reasonable? Ben Franklin is quoted as saying “Common sense is uncommon.” He spent his time in Philadelphia too…maybe it’s something in the water there.

The solution to this one construction method fits all, USGA green, is to utilize our agronomic skills and design site and condition specific green construction methods. The highest level of green construction would be utilized to grow bentgrass greens in the humid south with bad water. This is the most demanding situation that can be arrived at. What method would be utilized for this difficult situation? I would propose that the high performance push up green construction method be used.

High Performance Push Up Green Method:
Core Out Green to 8-10 inches below grade
Rough up or rip subsurface
Install drainage and smile drains in all runoff areas
Fill Drainage trenches with pea gravel or squeegee
Install green mix or sand, amendments can be tilled in.

This method of construction will perform very well under adverse conditions. The tighter the subsoil, the more rainfall received and the poorer the water quality, the closer the drainage spacing.

Lesser environmental demands will require less intensive construction methods. I have built green nurseries on native soils and then topdressed them. They always performed better than the USGA greens. I have seen greens built on native soils which were ripped and then capped with a few inches of sand that have outperformed USGA greens in the same region. Every agronomic situation is different but in my opinion none of them need USGA greens.

Green mixes need to have life in them. The sterile environment that the USGA has dictated for too long is just bad agronomics. It is reductionism and the application of an engineering solution that is silent and even disdainful of the life that soil must have to be productive. It is hydroponics. We create a sterile soil with no nutritional reserves and then wonder why we have odd patch diseases for the first three years. If we add life and nutritional reserves to greens mixes through the incorporation of composts, natural organic fertilizers and inoculants, we will have healthier turf and need less pesticides.

Has anybody ever considered the pollutants in the leachates from USGA greens compared to pushup greens? We should voluntarily mandate that we won’t put this contaminated leachate into drainage ways.

And now, many Superintendents are finding that the gravel/green mix interface is becoming sealed off with an iron oxide or other metal oxides totally restricting drainage into the gravel.

Now that you’ve read this, shouldn’t the Emperor put on some clothes? Shouldn’t we as responsible professionals use our expertise and experience to design region and site specific green construction methods that perform better, cost less to build, and pollute less? Perhaps the USGA can worry about rules, square grooves, anchored putters and the ball and leave the greens construction methods to us. The final question: is the USGA liable for damages to clubs whose USGA greens have failed?
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jimmy Cavezza

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #33 on: December 25, 2016, 10:20:36 PM »
Heres some food for thought...

USGA Greens and The Emperor's New Clothes
Armen Suny

In Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, two weavers promise to make the Emperor a set of clothes, that only the privileged or enlightened can see. There is a child that cries out “But he isn’t wearing anything at all.”

For decades now, the USGA, with its naked greens construction method, has bullied courses and Architects into the most expensive green construction method in common use with no empirical evidence that its method is better. We are supposed to blindly go along with their green construction method despite the fact that with their tens of millions of dollars spent on research, that they have not adequately investigated alternative green construction methods. Yes, there have been studies but as we all know, research has become highly politicized and results can, unfortunately be based upon funding and future funding.

Typical USGA Greens construction can cost anywhere from three to six dollars per square foot more than other construction methods. If we use five dollars for the sake of our discussion and assume 120,000 square feet of greens, they will add $600,000 to the cost of construction. If we use typical “ball park” golf development/operations numbers, each $100,000 of construction cost equates to $1 of greens fees. So the USGA's pressure on Architects and the golfing public has caused an average increase in green fees of $6 per round. Is this good for golf? The USGA will put forth the suggestion that other green construction methods are unproven and costlier to maintain. It simply is untrue. If USGA greens are truly superior and the only way to insure success, why don't the USGA's favorite venues for US Opens all have USGA greens?

The USGA is just like the two weavers in Andersen’s tale. The USGA green is just like the Emperor’s new clothes and I am like the child, only my cry is, “But it makes no agronomic sense and cost too much to build.” The USGA has stood by its guns with each version of its latest recasting of the specifications. Let me ask the question, what percentage of USGA greens have been rebuilt? Is the IRS correct in letting us depreciate USGA greens over 30 years? They won’t let us depreciate a push-up green. Can one green construction method be right for the entire world? It may not be right for anything! The USGA keeps telling us that the Emperor’s clothes are beautiful and that furthermore, that if we disagree that we are heretics and bad for the monarchy of golf.

Dr. Michael Hurdzan and I have had discussions for years about his righteous attempts to look at other green construction methods. His has been a lone voice in the industry to challenge the USGA green. What Mike and I have disagreed on was sterile green mixes as a growing medium. He is an advocate of straight sand California type greens and I am an advocate of green construction methods tailored to the specific agronomic conditions and always adding life and nutrient reserves to soil mixes.

Let me explain to you, that I grew up growing grass on push up greens in the Philadelphia area at Aronimink, Merion, and Rolling Green. And that then I had push up greens at Cherry Hills, inferior USGA Greens at Castle Pines, and USGA greens at Shadow Creek. I’ve grown grass in lots of different places on lots of different soil and construction types. I generally found that if your water was good, adequate surface drainage, and you had lots of sun and air movement, that virtually any green construction method was acceptable.

As a turf consultant, I used to enjoy taking Superintendents to one of their better USGA greens and looking at the collar on the far side of the green that got very little traffic and then looking at the adjacent men’s tee that got a lot of traffic. Invariably the highly trafficked tee turf, that often had the same grass, mowing height, and schedule as the green collar was in far better condition even though it was typically built with less grade, often no drainage, and only 4-6 inches of sand. The tee construction cost 25% of the green construction and was in better shape. I used to ask Superintendents if maybe we should start building the greens like the tees so that they would be in better shape and cost less to build. They would usually pause and then start regurgitating what they had learned in school. Maybe we should teach deductive reasoning as a turf course.

What I am about to expound upon is part conjecture and all opinion on my part. The concept behind the USGA green was to build a green that could be saturated from a rain event or by over irrigation from man and still provided an acceptable putting surface. They also wanted a green that could be irrigated with low quality water and still support turf life.

So logically, they piled some sandy materials on top of gravel and assumed that things would drain. Well it didn’t work. The sand on top of the gravel created a false water table, later renamed a perched water table because it sounded better. So instead of going back to the drawing board, to create a construction method that would drain and not create a false water table, these scientists started touting the virtues of a “perched” water table and how this was the ideal method of growing grass.

Now, nowhere have I ever seen their proof for this statement that we have all come to regard as the “Holy Grail” of green construction. A false water table is not the ideal method of growing grass. In all of agriculture, other than rice patties, I am unaware of any other growth system in agriculture that relies on a false water table.

Many Superintendents have come to realize that in order for a USGA green to drain, that you have to fill up much of the big pore spaces of the sand with water until the weight of the water and gravity cause the false water table to be broken. At that time the green will start to drain and the pore spaces will be filled with atmosphere.

Now we have many courses hooking up vacuum systems to their USGA greens to break the perched water table and pull the water out of the green. So, we designed and constructed a green with a perched water table and then because we don’t want the water there, we vacuum it out. Does my earlier statement about a deductive reasoning class being a requirement in a turf education start sounding more reasonable? Ben Franklin is quoted as saying “Common sense is uncommon.” He spent his time in Philadelphia too…maybe it’s something in the water there.

The solution to this one construction method fits all, USGA green, is to utilize our agronomic skills and design site and condition specific green construction methods. The highest level of green construction would be utilized to grow bentgrass greens in the humid south with bad water. This is the most demanding situation that can be arrived at. What method would be utilized for this difficult situation? I would propose that the high performance push up green construction method be used.

High Performance Push Up Green Method:
Core Out Green to 8-10 inches below grade
Rough up or rip subsurface
Install drainage and smile drains in all runoff areas
Fill Drainage trenches with pea gravel or squeegee
Install green mix or sand, amendments can be tilled in.

This method of construction will perform very well under adverse conditions. The tighter the subsoil, the more rainfall received and the poorer the water quality, the closer the drainage spacing.

Lesser environmental demands will require less intensive construction methods. I have built green nurseries on native soils and then topdressed them. They always performed better than the USGA greens. I have seen greens built on native soils which were ripped and then capped with a few inches of sand that have outperformed USGA greens in the same region. Every agronomic situation is different but in my opinion none of them need USGA greens.

Green mixes need to have life in them. The sterile environment that the USGA has dictated for too long is just bad agronomics. It is reductionism and the application of an engineering solution that is silent and even disdainful of the life that soil must have to be productive. It is hydroponics. We create a sterile soil with no nutritional reserves and then wonder why we have odd patch diseases for the first three years. If we add life and nutritional reserves to greens mixes through the incorporation of composts, natural organic fertilizers and inoculants, we will have healthier turf and need less pesticides.

Has anybody ever considered the pollutants in the leachates from USGA greens compared to pushup greens? We should voluntarily mandate that we won’t put this contaminated leachate into drainage ways.

And now, many Superintendents are finding that the gravel/green mix interface is becoming sealed off with an iron oxide or other metal oxides totally restricting drainage into the gravel.

Now that you’ve read this, shouldn’t the Emperor put on some clothes? Shouldn’t we as responsible professionals use our expertise and experience to design region and site specific green construction methods that perform better, cost less to build, and pollute less? Perhaps the USGA can worry about rules, square grooves, anchored putters and the ball and leave the greens construction methods to us. The final question: is the USGA liable for damages to clubs whose USGA greens have failed?
I couldn't agree more.  Give me greens that drain well, have good air movement, plenty of sunshine, beneficial soil microbes, and I'll give you great greens on a daily basis!  My handicap might even go down.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2016, 02:04:48 AM »
Mike,


spot on.

BCowan

Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2016, 09:57:35 AM »
Heres some food for thought...

USGA Greens and The Emperor's New Clothes
Armen Suny

In Hans Christian Andersen’s classic tale, two weavers promise to make the Emperor a set of clothes, that only the privileged or enlightened can see. There is a child that cries out “But he isn’t wearing anything at all.”

For decades now, the USGA, with its naked greens construction method, has bullied courses and Architects into the most expensive green construction method in common use with no empirical evidence that its method is better. We are supposed to blindly go along with their green construction method despite the fact that with their tens of millions of dollars spent on research, that they have not adequately investigated alternative green construction methods. Yes, there have been studies but as we all know, research has become highly politicized and results can, unfortunately be based upon funding and future funding.

Typical USGA Greens construction can cost anywhere from three to six dollars per square foot more than other construction methods. If we use five dollars for the sake of our discussion and assume 120,000 square feet of greens, they will add $600,000 to the cost of construction. If we use typical “ball park” golf development/operations numbers, each $100,000 of construction cost equates to $1 of greens fees. So the USGA's pressure on Architects and the golfing public has caused an average increase in green fees of $6 per round. Is this good for golf? The USGA will put forth the suggestion that other green construction methods are unproven and costlier to maintain. It simply is untrue. If USGA greens are truly superior and the only way to insure success, why don't the USGA's favorite venues for US Opens all have USGA greens?

The USGA is just like the two weavers in Andersen’s tale. The USGA green is just like the Emperor’s new clothes and I am like the child, only my cry is, “But it makes no agronomic sense and cost too much to build.” The USGA has stood by its guns with each version of its latest recasting of the specifications. Let me ask the question, what percentage of USGA greens have been rebuilt? Is the IRS correct in letting us depreciate USGA greens over 30 years? They won’t let us depreciate a push-up green. Can one green construction method be right for the entire world? It may not be right for anything! The USGA keeps telling us that the Emperor’s clothes are beautiful and that furthermore, that if we disagree that we are heretics and bad for the monarchy of golf.

Dr. Michael Hurdzan and I have had discussions for years about his righteous attempts to look at other green construction methods. His has been a lone voice in the industry to challenge the USGA green. What Mike and I have disagreed on was sterile green mixes as a growing medium. He is an advocate of straight sand California type greens and I am an advocate of green construction methods tailored to the specific agronomic conditions and always adding life and nutrient reserves to soil mixes.

Let me explain to you, that I grew up growing grass on push up greens in the Philadelphia area at Aronimink, Merion, and Rolling Green. And that then I had push up greens at Cherry Hills, inferior USGA Greens at Castle Pines, and USGA greens at Shadow Creek. I’ve grown grass in lots of different places on lots of different soil and construction types. I generally found that if your water was good, adequate surface drainage, and you had lots of sun and air movement, that virtually any green construction method was acceptable.

As a turf consultant, I used to enjoy taking Superintendents to one of their better USGA greens and looking at the collar on the far side of the green that got very little traffic and then looking at the adjacent men’s tee that got a lot of traffic. Invariably the highly trafficked tee turf, that often had the same grass, mowing height, and schedule as the green collar was in far better condition even though it was typically built with less grade, often no drainage, and only 4-6 inches of sand. The tee construction cost 25% of the green construction and was in better shape. I used to ask Superintendents if maybe we should start building the greens like the tees so that they would be in better shape and cost less to build. They would usually pause and then start regurgitating what they had learned in school. Maybe we should teach deductive reasoning as a turf course.

What I am about to expound upon is part conjecture and all opinion on my part. The concept behind the USGA green was to build a green that could be saturated from a rain event or by over irrigation from man and still provided an acceptable putting surface. They also wanted a green that could be irrigated with low quality water and still support turf life.

So logically, they piled some sandy materials on top of gravel and assumed that things would drain. Well it didn’t work. The sand on top of the gravel created a false water table, later renamed a perched water table because it sounded better. So instead of going back to the drawing board, to create a construction method that would drain and not create a false water table, these scientists started touting the virtues of a “perched” water table and how this was the ideal method of growing grass.

Now, nowhere have I ever seen their proof for this statement that we have all come to regard as the “Holy Grail” of green construction. A false water table is not the ideal method of growing grass. In all of agriculture, other than rice patties, I am unaware of any other growth system in agriculture that relies on a false water table.

Many Superintendents have come to realize that in order for a USGA green to drain, that you have to fill up much of the big pore spaces of the sand with water until the weight of the water and gravity cause the false water table to be broken. At that time the green will start to drain and the pore spaces will be filled with atmosphere.

Now we have many courses hooking up vacuum systems to their USGA greens to break the perched water table and pull the water out of the green. So, we designed and constructed a green with a perched water table and then because we don’t want the water there, we vacuum it out. Does my earlier statement about a deductive reasoning class being a requirement in a turf education start sounding more reasonable? Ben Franklin is quoted as saying “Common sense is uncommon.” He spent his time in Philadelphia too…maybe it’s something in the water there.

The solution to this one construction method fits all, USGA green, is to utilize our agronomic skills and design site and condition specific green construction methods. The highest level of green construction would be utilized to grow bentgrass greens in the humid south with bad water. This is the most demanding situation that can be arrived at. What method would be utilized for this difficult situation? I would propose that the high performance push up green construction method be used.

High Performance Push Up Green Method:
Core Out Green to 8-10 inches below grade
Rough up or rip subsurface
Install drainage and smile drains in all runoff areas
Fill Drainage trenches with pea gravel or squeegee
Install green mix or sand, amendments can be tilled in.

This method of construction will perform very well under adverse conditions. The tighter the subsoil, the more rainfall received and the poorer the water quality, the closer the drainage spacing.

Lesser environmental demands will require less intensive construction methods. I have built green nurseries on native soils and then topdressed them. They always performed better than the USGA greens. I have seen greens built on native soils which were ripped and then capped with a few inches of sand that have outperformed USGA greens in the same region. Every agronomic situation is different but in my opinion none of them need USGA greens.

Green mixes need to have life in them. The sterile environment that the USGA has dictated for too long is just bad agronomics. It is reductionism and the application of an engineering solution that is silent and even disdainful of the life that soil must have to be productive. It is hydroponics. We create a sterile soil with no nutritional reserves and then wonder why we have odd patch diseases for the first three years. If we add life and nutritional reserves to greens mixes through the incorporation of composts, natural organic fertilizers and inoculants, we will have healthier turf and need less pesticides.

Has anybody ever considered the pollutants in the leachates from USGA greens compared to pushup greens? We should voluntarily mandate that we won’t put this contaminated leachate into drainage ways.

And now, many Superintendents are finding that the gravel/green mix interface is becoming sealed off with an iron oxide or other metal oxides totally restricting drainage into the gravel.

Now that you’ve read this, shouldn’t the Emperor put on some clothes? Shouldn’t we as responsible professionals use our expertise and experience to design region and site specific green construction methods that perform better, cost less to build, and pollute less? Perhaps the USGA can worry about rules, square grooves, anchored putters and the ball and leave the greens construction methods to us. The final question: is the USGA liable for damages to clubs whose USGA greens have failed?

Nicely done.  I copied and emailed this to several of my keeper friends.  Makes a great Christmas present. 

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2016, 10:10:07 AM »

I think most architects and agronomists believe there should be some variation, even with USGA variation guidelines, to accommodate the actual site conditions.


I recall a lawsuit against a contractor building USGA greens in the desert.  The owner refused to pay because the perc rate came out at 5.9" per hour, not the minimum 6 in the USGA recommendations. Of course, in the desert, you would really want some water holding capacity and they really did work well.


As noted with the iron oxide, some issues have come up over the years, like water quality, that probably need to be accounted for.  The main gist in 1968 was compaction.  They felt that irrigation and pelletized fertilizers were sound enough to remove from the equation, because they could be replaced easily, and the pure sand (with added peat to hold minimum required moisture) would eliminate compaction.


Like most single focused solutions, other problems can and did develop, but can be surmounted via agronomy.  What else was lost in the USGA method was that it started out as a way to use local sands to create a practical greens mix, and became a rigid one size fits all method, as these things are prone to do over time.  A few lawsuits were all it took to make many scared to go away from the now recognized standard, but some common sense in adapting to the site and budget are still required from architect, super, and turf consultant. 


Following the USGA as a starting point is not a bad idea, because it has been generally successful, but mindlessly following it is just as bad as ignoring it completely.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Don Mahaffey

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #37 on: December 26, 2016, 10:26:03 AM »
Anyone who wants to learn more about growing high quality golf turf should seek out Armen.

This discussion always starts with labels, like USGA, California, Push up, and to me that is often when the discussion goes off the rails, as if one of  these methods were always the answer to a particular situation.  Fact is, these are all just variations of a system for growing grass that is cut short enough to putt on and the sooner we lose the labels and focus on the system properties, the sooner we start to have a real discussion.

Armen hits the main point with his use of the word hydroponics. This discussion starts with the idea of a hydroponic growing medium vs a soil growing medium. Do you want your rootzone to simply be a place to anchor roots, or do you want your rootzone to act like a soil.

In turf science we are taught not to "trust" a soil as our rootzone. That we are wiser than nature and we can provide what the plant needs when it needs it if we use the rootzone simply as an anchoring mechanism and keep it as clean and sterile as possible. The irony here is this method has spawned an entire industry of biological inputs aimed at creating some of the very benefits you'd get if you simply took the soil route. I don't really even want to get started here because my rant will be long and profane. But I'll say this, if we simply lost the labels, the fear of litigation, and decided prior to construction what was important to us, then made use of reasonably priced materials, in most cases, we could produce a green's system that meets our needs, for much less expense.
But no, much better to pay someone to draw up some detailed plan, then pay someone to build the subgrade to within 1/10th of an inch, then the same with the gravel where laser measuring on a 5' grid assures perfect accuracy, then the same with the rootzone (just don't go the site on a Sunday because you might catch the architect and his favorite shaper doing some tie in work that doesn't quite follow the recipe).
Then as soon as we finish this, we start the addition of inputs aimed at making a hydroponic environment mimic a soil based rootzone...and the hyper management required to do this becomes an expensive way of life.  All because instead of trying to solve a puzzle with reason, we got attached to labels.   

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2016, 10:45:49 AM »

Following the USGA as a starting point is not a bad idea, because it has been generally successful, but mindlessly following it is just as bad as ignoring it completely.

Jeff,
This is where I become confused and always have been.  The USGA Green is so strict you can't half way follow it...right?  And the herringbone drainage and gravel layer were around before the USGA spec, plus they were adapted by the USGA spec...right? 
So if we were to do as mentioned in a thread above and just use common sense whereby we had drainage under a functioning root zone we would be doing the same as you mention.  Right?   I don't think it is a reality...just a talking point. 

Hope you had a Great Christmas...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #39 on: December 26, 2016, 11:37:18 AM »

Mike,


Hope you had a great Christmas, too.  Looking forward to a  prosperous New Year.


Part of my point is that the 1968 original specs had some variables.  After 2000, I think some more variables are coming back in particle size, drainage, etc.  for a while, it was too strict a one size fits all, but I think they recognized that, including the sterile environment Armen mentioned.


It doesn't trouble me that Marvin Ferguson adopted some already proven practices when coming up with the spec 60 some years ago.  Why wouldn't he?  And, it doesn't bother me that they used scientific methods to try to figure out if 10 foot spacing was better than 15 or 20, etc., or how much less drainage you get with just a "birds foot" at the bottom, how much a gravel layer evens out drainage, etc.  Again, that is the point of research for turf, no?


BTW, Marv gave me some decidedly non USGA green type advice in 1979 or so, despite being the father of the method 10 years earlier.  I think you print one thing for consumption, but in reality, we all know we can't build full USGA method due to budget, and sometimes, agronomics, and it has always been that way, no?


I think we agree that following the recommendation (not spec) got to be sort of a legal thing.  And, probably the USGA says its no USGA green with just one change, because they don't want to be part of a lawsuit for some crazy owner who changes everything but the name, it doesn't work, and then he includes the USGA in his lawsuit. And, why they call it a recommendation instead of a spec......
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #40 on: December 26, 2016, 11:59:50 AM »

Mike,


Hope you had a great Christmas, too.  Looking forward to a  prosperous New Year.


Part of my point is that the 1968 original specs had some variables.  After 2000, I think some more variables are coming back in particle size, drainage, etc.  for a while, it was too strict a one size fits all, but I think they recognized that, including the sterile environment Armen mentioned.


It doesn't trouble me that Marvin Ferguson adopted some already proven practices when coming up with the spec 60 some years ago.  Why wouldn't he?  And, it doesn't bother me that they used scientific methods to try to figure out if 10 foot spacing was better than 15 or 20, etc., or how much less drainage you get with just a "birds foot" at the bottom, how much a gravel layer evens out drainage, etc.  Again, that is the point of research for turf, no?


BTW, Marv gave me some decidedly non USGA green type advice in 1979 or so, despite being the father of the method 10 years earlier.  I think you print one thing for consumption, but in reality, we all know we can't build full USGA method due to budget, and sometimes, agronomics, and it has always been that way, no?


I think we agree that following the recommendation (not spec) got to be sort of a legal thing.  And, probably the USGA says its no USGA green with just one change, because they don't want to be part of a lawsuit for some crazy owner who changes everything but the name, it doesn't work, and then he includes the USGA in his lawsuit. And, why they call it a recommendation instead of a spec......

Jeff,
You're right....and that's why I think USGA green specs are an idealism and not a reality...IMHO...
A good example would be for me or you or most of us to say we have a modified Tiger Woods golf swing...we take it back and we turn and we come thru the ball and there is a space at the bottom of the swing where we make contact..all elements are there ...it's all true...BUT it ain't ;D ;D   That's the way I see the USGA green....JMHO
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 12:02:01 PM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2016, 06:11:33 AM »


I think we agree that following the recommendation (not spec) got to be sort of a legal thing.  And, probably the USGA says its no USGA green with just one change, because they don't want to be part of a lawsuit for some crazy owner who changes everything but the name, it doesn't work, and then he includes the USGA in his lawsuit. And, why they call it a recommendation instead of a spec......

Exactly! A very important point and you're one of the very few people I've heard articulate it. There is no "USGA spec", only a recommendation.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #42 on: December 27, 2016, 10:17:04 AM »


I think we agree that following the recommendation (not spec) got to be sort of a legal thing.  And, probably the USGA says its no USGA green with just one change, because they don't want to be part of a lawsuit for some crazy owner who changes everything but the name, it doesn't work, and then he includes the USGA in his lawsuit. And, why they call it a recommendation instead of a spec......

Exactly! A very important point and you're one of the very few people I've heard articulate it. There is no "USGA spec", only a recommendation.


Steve,


this is a very good point and a very true one. The reason that USGA 'recommendation' has been taken up so readily is it is a way for people to say 'hey, I am not responsible'. However, in an industry where there are so many variants, where you can do everything right and still get stung by poor results it is understandable.


Jon

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: USGA vs Push Up Greens
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2016, 11:33:59 AM »
Steve and John,

I agree. Wonder why they don't do the same with rules or even the ball and equipment? ;D ;D
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back