USGA Green Section

[jim_lewis]

Does your club invite the USGA to offer course maintenance recommendations? Routinely? To address special problems?
Have you found their advice to be helpful and worth the cost? Is the decision to consult with them made by the Super?
Jim Lewis

[David Royer]

We have the USGA come in and issue a report. We find it very helpful around several issues.  The report will recommend enhanced practices where required such as aeration.  It also covers issues like tree removal.  This can be very helpful in member education.  The walk through is a positive for the green committee in it's education curve.  As chairman I give every new member of the committee a copy prior to first meeting of the season.   Another practice I've seen at other clubs is to post the report In the locker room to assist with member education.  Our plan is to incorporate this practice on the issuance of our next review. 

[Bill Brightly]

The USGA agronomist comes twice per year to our course. I think we have an excellent superintendent and he seems to welcome the visits. When I was the Grounds Chair I used to attend whenever I could. Much of the talk is about bugs and chemicals, way beyond my comprehension, but I am certain that our Super found the meetings useful, or else he would have put an end to it.

It also helps "sell" selected tree removal when you can report to the membership that the USGA agronomist recommended that certain trees come down to improve turf quality. Tough for the tree huggers to counter the USGA.

[BCrosby]

The USGA comes twice a year to our club. It's a useful way to hear what other clubs are doing in our area. He has given us some good tips on green and bunker maintenance where an architecture firm was recommending more expensive rebuilds. Their recommendations can also be useful cover.

Bob 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does your club invite the USGA to offer course maintenance recommendations? Routinely? To address special problems?
Have you found their advice to be helpful and worth the cost? Is the decision to consult with them made by the Super?

Jim,

Independent, third party advice/substantiation is often worth it's weight in gold.

My question would be:

Why wouldn't a club retain the USGA Agronomist for evaluative purposes on an annual basis ?

[Terry Lavin]

The USGA agronomist is a good super's best friend. They help defend current practices and encourage future work that a super might not be able to sell on his own.

[RJ_Daley]

This  is only in the form of a question, not accusation.  I used to follow the subject more closely and monitor trends and articles in GCM magazine years ago, not so much anymore...

With that said, is there a sense of the USGA green section becoming more, or less, promoters of various practices that boosts product and equimpment sales of golf industries manufacturers related to turf management?  Does the USGA greensection have a broad array of suggested practices that can address the resource level of particular clubs as it relates to both environmental considerations, and financial status of the club that they engage for consultation?

Do supers perceive that the green section has a one-way or bias philosophical approach to managing resources that promotes high or overuse of products, or can they adopt a minimalist and tolerant to brown and lean approach to turf management?

Is the Green Section of USGA perceived by professional turf managers to be on the cutting edge of the modern perception of dwindling global resources and need to conserve in all aspects of turf management via a new set of standards of what they might deem, 'best practices'?

[Anthony_Nysse]

  I have 10 years of reports from USGA visits, ending in 2009. A majority of the reports had the dates just "cut and pasted" to make the report current. I reports we rather generic and bland.
  Yes, the reports can help promote/support a project, a program and even get some funding. I think that many members put too much emphasis and importance of the USGA label. We use an independent consultant 2x a year. He was a superintendent over 7 major championship sites and was the Superintendent over courses such at Wilmington CC, Oakmont CC, Winged Foot, Congressional, Augusta and Riviera. He's managed all the grasses at the highest of levels. I personally, feel his credibility carries more weight, not to mention the fact he still eats, sleeps and breaths turfgrass still to this day.
 

[David Bartman]

We have the USGA come out 2x every year.  In my opinion, it isn't worth a damn if your super is even average.  Every year the USGA comes out and reports that our super is doing all the right things.  However, we had some issues with our greens about 2 years ago, all the while , every year getting positive reports about our course and the practices being utilized. 

I know growing grass can be a tricky thing, but this wasn't a disease that happened overnight.  We started using well water to irrigate our fairways, with the plan to flush out the well water before watering our greens.  Well that didn't work out as well as one would have hoped.  We came to find out that a few other courses with Wells had installed a separate pipe for city water to be used on the greens.  our USGA representative, didn't give us that information or any other helpful tips about using our well water. 

All in all, I would think it depends on the type of club that you are, we are a very high end club, that is in the top 10% of maintenance in the country both in results and budget, so the USGA isn't much help to our specific golf course.  However, they may provide value for those not so high on the food chain.   

[Bill Brightly]

David,

Can you enlighten us on the difference between well water and city water on greens? Is there a problem with the quality of well water in your area?

[Matt Bosela]

My home club is having the USGA turf guy out in a couple weeks to do a full evaluation of our maintenance practices.  We had a tough summer last year in the Northeast and the board and the membership seem ready to do whatever is necessary to get a healthy growing environment, whether it's through tree clearing or other maintenance practices.

I think it's the first time we've ever brought them out and personally, I'm looking forward to the walk through and subsequent evaluation. 

[Robert Emmons]

They can offer advice on comparable issues they see at other clubs in the area...The reports have a tendency to defend what the super or green chair want to highlight...not gospell but helps...RHE

[Mike_Young]

They are good as a CYA for club committee system.  I would prefer private consultants instead.  But members are more apt to be satisfied with a report that says "USGA" and a board member that has such a report can continue to place blame for an issue on such a report in the future.  The USGA reps have a quota of visits they are required to do each year so it in their interest to make sure they are invited back each year thus a supt. or a committee can influence their report.  IMHO....

[Jim_Kennedy]

They were very thorough at our course and plainly explained where we were and what we could do given the budget we had.....

....and they never tried to sell us anything.

[Tony Ristola]

Stan Metsker wrote a book about his life as a superintendent; On the Course. He worked in CO at Pete Dye's CC of Colorado. At one of the CO clubs he was at I recall (hopefully correctly) he had (we're talking decades ago) a USGA Green Section representative visit and recommended he triple the Nitrogen on the greens. He didn't want his Board of Directors to hear that... so he never had a Green Section representative back, and the money he was sending to the USGA... he sent somewhere else.

Anthony N: Paul Latshaw?

[Anthony_Nysse]

Anthony N: Paul Latshaw?

Bingo. A true turf guy that has walked in a Superintendents shoes, managed all types of grasses in all climates at the highest level.