[MCirba]

Just read that USGA spec green conversion can be a million dollar investment and I recall reading prior that they need to be re-done every several years.  Yet I've played many courses with push-up greens that hadn't been rebuilt since the 1920s or longer that were exceptionally interesting and eminently playable.


Despite being told that it's very possible with today's technology I have yet to play a course where the greens were converted from push up to USGA spec and remained the same in terms of overall contouring interest subtlety and variety.


Why? Why do we do this.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Mike, I have thought the same thing many times. Push up greens seem to last a long time.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, Mikey - that's one of the reasons why your work at Cobb's Creek is so valuable: you can't disperse the darkness, but you can bring in the light. But who would've thought: this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a spec sheet...

[Joe Hancock]

First, we have to take a good look in the mirror. Do we praise the over-the-top maintenance that almost every top-whatever course presents, or do we embrace the variability that challenges us when we play lower tier courses? Which types of facilities do we brag about? Where do we spend the bulk of our golfing dollars?


Long story short, the demands of golfers is why everything in golf is the way it is. It doesn’t have to be the way it is, but as long as the golfers demand lower cuts, faster greens, perfect bunkers, flawless roughs, etc., etc.....we will continue down this path.

[Jon Wiggett]

Joe,


yes you are correct with your 'demand of the golfer' angle but I would argue it is a demand that is industry generated.


The USGA wants it because it makes them and there research institute world standard setters.


The various tours want it because it makes the game easier/less challenging for the players and happy players equals happy tour


The golf seed/chemical industry like it because it makes the turf far more expensive to maintain and higher costs equal higher profits.


The machine maintenance companies like it for the same reason the seed/chemical industry does


The construction companies like it because you have to rip up the greens every 25 to 30 years to redo them. This often leads to an overhaul of the entire course. More work for the boys.


All this is GOOD for the industry which is not shy at saying how much better it would be for the golfer (which it isn't but who cares)


IMO push up greens are superior to USGA specs by quite a margin overall.


 All the big players in the golf industry want it so it gets promoted/pushed at the golfer as desirable from all angles.

[Jeff Schley]

Mike and Jon you guys have the answer.

Pushed up greens have proved themselves over time, and the "industry" has subverted this in the name of progress (according to them) which in turn keeps them relevant and busy, not to mention profitable.

USGA greens are better = FAKE NEWS

[Sean_A]

Why? Why do we do this.

Drainage. Its fairly rare to come across USGA greens in GB&I because there was never a culture for such a thing...probably for two reasons

1. Most of the famous courses are links/heathland so there is little need.

2. Most clubs can't afford to convert. 

The two courses near me which converted now have superior greens because they drain much better and thus provide a far better year round golf experience.  In one case, the difference between greens and fairways is startling...which begs the question of why fairways leading to greens weren't improved.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Aren't USGA 'spec' greens a 'recommendation' rather than a precise spec?
Push-ups are certainly nice, especially when old enough to have been done by men with horses and scoops and hand tools.
At grade greens are nice too, and probably underused - now there's a subject for a separate thread if one doesn't exist already - as are dunes/humps with the tops chopped off and punchbowls - all need decent drainage though so does that take us back to USGA 'spec/recommendation' on non free-draining sites?
Push-ups with properly done retro fitted drainage can be nice/effective too as long as the original contouring in maintained.
atb

[Ally Mcintosh]

Dunno Sean,


It’s fairly rare to come across any course in GB&I from the last 30 years that doesn’t come close to the USGA construction method... more’s the pity.


Even a few of our links courses have used this method when renovating / redoing which I personally feel is complete overkill.


It has definitely helped winter play on our inland courses - these used to be played on winter greens.


But I think that it has stifled risk taking and cost savings because most architects are afraid to veer from the method and specify something cheaper that might be better suited to the particular site and club.

[Clyde Johnson]

Even a few of our links courses have used this method when renovating / redoing which I personally feel is complete overkill.

Any examples Ally, seems like crazy thinking to me?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Even a few of our links courses have used this method when renovating / redoing which I personally feel is complete overkill.

Any examples Ally, seems like crazy thinking to me?

I understand Royal Dublin and even Lahinch were at minimum given a gravel sub-layer and some tile drainage. But I will check my facts to ensure I have the right examples.

[Sean_A]

Dunno Sean,

It’s fairly rare to come across any course in GB&I from the last 30 years that doesn’t come close to the USGA construction method... more’s the pity.

Even a few of our links courses have used this method when renovating / redoing which I personally feel is complete overkill.

It has definitely helped winter play on our inland courses - these used to be played on winter greens.

But I think that it has stifled risk taking and cost savings because most architects are afraid to veer from the method and specify something cheaper that might be better suited to the particular site and club.

Ally...not many courses have been built in the last 30 years (and I bet a significant percentage never touched USGA spec)...and most of the well known ones are on sand.  That said, I was more referencing pre-existing clubs as M Cirba mentioned.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,


An enormous amount of courses were built in GB&I in the last 30 years. The first 20 of those were maybe the busiest time in course building the countries had seen since the turn of the previous century.


And there have certainly been a large number of clubs that have redone their greens, all moving away from push-up to USGA.

[Sean_A]

I am guessing maybe 200 courses built during the last 30 years (though I would be surprised if it was that many)...so not a huge pecentage of the course stock.  Are saying the majority of these horrible farmland courses used USGA spec greens?  If so, well then something has gone badly amiss because so many of these new breed courses have very poorly drained greens.

As I say, in my area I know of two courses which have gone USGA spec. Edgbaston is a very good Colt course...Redditch, not so much.  The one thing they have in common other than the spec of greens, is they are over-treed 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

As I say, in my area I know of two courses which have gone USGA spec. Edgbaston is a very good Colt course...Redditch, not so much.  The one thing they have in common other than the spec of greens, is they are over-treed 

It's actually quite common to see clubs spend $$$ rebuilding their greens to improve drainage, when cutting the trees around the greens might well have solved the problems.

[Ally Mcintosh]

A lot more than 200 Sean (more than 100 in Ireland alone) and yes most of those farmland courses used a variety of the USGA recommended method...

[Kyle Harris]

I am curious as to whether or not you could tell the difference between a poorly-built/designed push-up green and a well-designed green built with the USGA method of construction in a blind test.


I also feel the need to make my annual point that the purpose of the USGA developing a method for construction was not for drainage - we knew how to do that - but to prevent/mitigate compaction.


Would anyone care to research how many (more than one) and which (rhymes with -illie -ark, Jr.) ODG-era architects used subsurface drainage and soil layering as a construction method?

[Jon Wiggett]

Kyle,


but we know how to counter compaction too. I am not against USGA specs if it is used in the right way in the right situation but too often it is used to cover the GCAs and construction firms asses when much better results could be achieved using locally source materials.


Most of the ODGs used subsoil drainage (this is nothing to do with USGA except for the ridiculous blanket drainage) but most would have used so called dirty sand which was a mix of sand and soil. In an earlier post Sean nails the biggest problem with his comment about wonder greens and poor fairways in the winter. It is stupidity to build greens that require a maintenance program to keep them in decent nick that is going to be severely detrimental to the surrounds and fairway area by the green.


Good golf course architecture, course construction and course maintenance should ensure that the entire course has similar playing characteristics across the various parts of the course. If you cannot afford to build fairways and surrounds to suit the greens then you need to build the greens to suit the fairways and surrounds.

[Joe Hancock]

USGA greens do a couple things well:


They drain well, while maintaining some moisture in the rootzone because of the perched water table(a brilliant design(or discovery),IMO)


They don’t compact like native soils typically do. This has everything to do with the USGA guidelines concerning particle size/ distribution


USGA greens are not so good at some other things:


Nutrient retention, which results in the very unnatural fertility regimes that supers must implement to keep the plant “healthy” (I hate that term, as it is so often misused in the context of golf turf)


Microbial habitat


Either way, my opinion is that the biggest enemy of any soil, or construction method as it pertains to golf greens, is near-constant application of irrigation water(I don’t care whether it comes from a hose end or a sprinkler nozzle). It hurts the microbes, it causes compaction, and it’s an unnatural cycle. I also think that we humans are constantly trying to outsmart the natural processes, but we’re not smart enough to conquer them.

[RDecker]

Research has shown that especially where greens were concerned that some of the best results come from constant overseeding and tree management.  Dollar for dollar these two practices can yield very noticeable results.  If you then have a skilled super to create a solid spray program that doesn't have to break the bank you can achieve really nice putting surfaces.  Sun and airflow are essentially free if you can just get the chainsaw going.

[Mark_Fine]

Last resort to me is to rebuild an old push up green!  And when we have to, we try to build is so it is representative of the other greens on the course otherwise the super has to maintain the new green much differently than the original ones. 

[Kyle Harris]

Jon,


I agree with you.


I think it is perhaps a bit too easy to immediately point to the development of a construction method as the bellwether for a downturn in some other arbitrarily assigned measure of quality. To wit, when one considers all the corners that could be (and were at times) cut to rush construction that have long-reaching and devastating effects a few years down the road the idea of having some sort of construction standard moving forward becomes appealing.


Mike might be interested in reading the USDA Hugh Wilson/Piper/Oakley letters, which while primarily dealing with turf propagation, also touch on some of the troubles encountered with construction at Pine Valley and Merion, among other places.

[Mike_Young]

It's all about the money.It started for many of today's supts when they were in school and all were taught that the only way to have good greens was to have a USGA spec green.  Show me a contractor or supt or consultant pushing for only USGA and then "follow the money" as they say.  So many supts look at it as an insurance policy and just like they do irrigation systems.  You have to remember the USGA feels golf is there for them while they promote they are there for golf. 


Also remember the average private club is employee driven since the board is rarely in a position to be able to argue with it's employees.  Don't think vendors don't know this and use it.  I've seen more good greens destroyed in order to build USGA than I have improved.  The USGA green in many locations is a bathtub.  Clog one exit drain and you have issues that may not be found for a year.  And so often the drainage areas outside of greens in the fall off areas comes from the bottom of the cavity on the USGA green.  The USGA knows it is the path of least resistance for the average supt and the industry plays off of that...

[Joel_Stewart]

Olympic Club is an example. The architect decided that the old pushup greens needed to be converted to USGA spec. So they hollowed out the sand subdoil to build the new greens. Then they decided to sod the greens.


5 years later the greens are mush. Green speeds last week were about 8.5. The poa is starting to come back. Every decision they made regarding the greens has been wrong.

[Tom_Doak]

I think a lot of superintendents would be less inclined to push for USGA greens (or more inclined to push back) if they knew how many superintendents lost their jobs within a year or two of having new greens.  Expectations are very high and the learning curve on how to maintain sand-based greens is very steep.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()