If any of you out there are on your club's Green or Golf Committees.....

[TEPaul]

......or even on your club's board, or even if you are just members really into the agronomic maintenance of your golf course, you have just got to read, and very carefully, Pat Mucci's "Will Push-up greens make a comeback" thread; you don't need to read Pat's posts too carefully but the responses are dynamite! 

It's more than architecture, for sure; definitely into maintenance and agronomics but it's the best----we have some real detailed and thoughtful stuff on there now with some of our best contributors.

Well, other than Patrick, of course. So how ironic is it that he started the thread? Believe it or not, I'm proud of him---as of tonight he's still sort of holding his own. He might crash and burn in the next 24 or 48 hours but for now he's actually trying to engage on a pretty complex subject.

Anybody want to bet how long he will last before he flames out and shifts the whole thread to a ten page argument about what something like "Catton" actually means?

I'll make book!

Read it, it's really good. It's technical but really good.

PS:
I think Ian Larson asked a remarkable question which was----do some people, without knowing much about it, just have it in for the USGA spec green construction method because they're pissed at the USGA for other things or just sort of generally? It's interesting no one answered that. Great question though, at least for some of the people on this website. 

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom, I actually think it's just the opposite for many folks concerning USGA greens.  I've heard folks sing the praises of USGA green specs in part becuase they feel the USGA can do no wrong.

But that's just what I've heard.

I'd love to hear if architects have had clients request USGA-spec greens "just becuase".

I'm headed over to the push up greens thread as soon as Laura's done watching her guy (Freddie Couples) teach Mark Wahlberg how to golf on TGC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I have great respect, in many areas, for the USGA and their staff.

The one exception is on the I&B issue.
I think they let the horse out of the barn on that one.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I actually think it's just the opposite for many folks concerning USGA greens.  I've heard folks sing the praises of USGA green specs in part becuase they feel the USGA can do no wrong."


Dan:

Thank you for that reply, and on some slight consideration, I'm quite sure you're right about that. If so, it just might indicate what small and semi-marginalized group of complainers towards the USGA do populate this particular website. That certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't have an outlet and even a vocal one. It's still an interesting question, however.

[Greg Chambers]

Tom,

I'm going to answer Ian's question about the USGA spec green, from my perspective.  I didn't answer it on the other thread, because I didn't want to go off on a tangent.  But here's my take on the situation.  The USGA specification for building a green is a GUIDLINE, nothing more, nothing less.  It is not the way a green HAS to be built.  However, the method IS promoted as the way a green HAS to be built, which is BS.  Too many projects have added way too much cost to their construction because they were led down the wrong path in being forced to believe that the USGA spec is the only way a green can be built and be successful.  That's just simply not the case.  Other methods can work just fine, push up being one, modified USGA being another, that can cost far less to construct, and help the course financially going forward. 

[TEPaul]

Greg:

Regarding your last post, I do realize that perhaps too many people think the USGA is trying to foist the USGA spec green on everyone from every region. Part and parcel (or should I say particle) of this misconception is probably many people also believe the USGA is trying to denigrate the use or construction of push-up greens or some of the other green construction variations. Some probably even think the USGA is trying to sell something of their own and trying to make money off it such as their USGA spec green.

I don't believe any of that is the case with the USGA or ever has been. What they are trying to promote and always have with their spec green is a construction method that really can and will work in all regions. Their over-all intention is to offer something that can prevent various on-going agronomic mistakes from being made in various regions, and there are all kinds of good and legitimate historical reasons for that approach of theirs that go way back into the 1920s when their Green Section was formed.

Very early on the USGA realized that given all the various different weather and soil conditions across this vast country of ours that agronomic development and practice in America could just not be looked at the same way say GB did and does for some pretty obvious and fundamental reasons and differences.

Ian Larson asked a good question on this thread which was perhaps too many people have something against USGA spec greens simply because the USGA name happens to be attached to it. I noticed noone answered his question. Perhaps more people on here and out there should think about that, including some of the historical reasons for a number of things the USGA has developed and done from their inception in 1920 and on.   

[Ian Larson]

Greg,

I know that USGA spec is not the "be all end all" to greens construction. The USGA even knows that. Any agronomical minded person

that studies soil science knows that. A real soils guy understands the different raw materials used and that can be used, whether it is

native taken from the site or whether its processed from the plant.


I know it may seem like Im a damn spokesman for the USGA on the other thread. Im not. I love soils. I consider myself a soils guy. Very soon

Ill be continuing my education in soils. I actually love reading soils books. My stance is purely about choosing the right soil. Like I said on the

other thread, I would never consider anything USGA, spec or modified. If I had access to a good source of soil that was consistent in structure

and drained well. Thats all you need to manage a healthy green. I feel the USGA and their method gets dumped on unfairly.


Personally I have constructed various types of greens while in construction. One being the greens at Hollowbrook Golf Club in Northern

Westchester County, NY. Those greens were in an enviornmentally sensitive area which was a watershed for the city of Peekskill's drinking

water. The city was worried about it getting contaminated. So the greens were built with a plastic liner covering the soil sub grade. Instead of

digging drainage trenches "flat" drainage tile was simply laid out in a herringbone style on top of the plastic liner and secured. Gravel and

greens mix was installed on top of it and they work great.


Ive also been involved with california style greens at a course in State College, Pa. Completely different than anything the USGA would

recommend. They work great. The common denominator was choosing a growing medium that drained well. The only wrong answer to this

is choosing a soil that does not drain IMHO. Any way that positive drainage can be achieved through the profile is good in my book.



But to keep my post relevant to this thread....


Your post is kinda the tone that I am referring to when it comes to the USGA and their guidelines. Your post makes it sound like someone

from the USGA has come into a project you were on and really tried to force a USGA spec method on to you like a pushy salesman. When

does this happen? I have dealt with USGA agronomists in the southeast, the northeast and the southwest. I cant think of a single guy out of

any of those offices that I wouldnt want to be friends with or have a beer together (thats my measure for good people). With construction

projects I have been involved with, the USGA has come in and only presented themselves as professionals who want to be available and be

utilized as a "tool". And I dont mean "tool" in a derogatory way    They always present themselves as a source of information and to help any

way they possibly can, which I have always appreciated.


If by chance the owners, builders and project managers were to choose to go with something totally different than a USGA spec, they would

never scoff at it or try to persuade anyone otherwise. Unless the choice was an obviously bad one. They add their two cents and leave it

to the people putting up the money to take the two cents or leave it.


If youre not familiar with Jim Moore of the USGA, he is the head of the construction department. One of the best guys I have ever met. He

has come in to new constructions I was working on and hes also come in to established clubs I was working at. Jim is always looking to

improve greens construction, not because of failures, but because hes passionate about golf and greenskeeping and dedicates himself to

helping ensure that the superintendent will be successful with his greens. I will also add that they have bailed alot of supers out of

unsavory situations with their greens and jobs being on the line. They usually do so with all the credit going to the superintendent.


Unless you have had a bad personal experience with the USGA and that is where you're coming from I disagree with you the USGA, or

anyone for that matter, pushes the USGA spec green is the ONLY way a green HAS to be built. The USGA knows its ONLY a GUIDELINE and

I have only ever had great relations with all of them and appreciate the service they provide.   

[Greg Chambers]

Ian,

I totally agree with you regarding your points about the USGA and their efforts in agronomy.  I have been a part of four construction project, one USGA spec greens, one push up greens, one CA greens, and one modified USGA.  All four have been very successful.

The message that I'm trying to get across is regarding golf course construction projects that may not be fortunate enough to have a person on board such as yourself or myself, but are reliant on only what the "industry standard" is regarding golf course construction.  Most developers wouldn't even know that there was any other way to build a green besides the USGA spec method, without doing a ton of research.  And my experience is that from a liability standpoint, most architects and construction contractors would just prefer it that way.  Not to mention the fact that golf developers like to promote their greens as USGA spec, when you and I both know that means diddly in the bigger picture.

So to sum it up, I've never had a bad experience with USGA, nor have I personally ever felt that anything along those lines was forced upon me.  But the bottom line is that most developers will just go in that direction because they believe the USGA method is the industry standard until they're educated otherwise.

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  I have been involved with our committee for over 15 years.  I agree wholeheartedly with your initial post, absent the usual digs at Pat.  You're on your own on that topic.  I believe it is one of the better discussions we have had in a long time.

I also agree regarding the character and intentions of the USGA greens section staff.  I have spoken on at least 5 seminars with several of them and have had them to our course  and they are great.  However I will observe that their default position is to recommend USGA construction.  Understandable under the circumstances.

Finally, as I noted on the other thread, while there are some who have a "knee jerk" reaction against the USGA, I believe a greater number in the business view recommending a USGA construction model as insurance against criticism.  If there are problems they can say they followed the recommendations for state of the art construction.  If they go a different way, their keester is exposed.

[Bruce Katona]

I wouldn't use the term "push-up" but we have our share of native soil tees and greens.  The soil and subsoil was tested and lab results were within acceptable levels to be utilized.  It was there on site and less expensive than importing "USGA Spec" material, so why not.

We occasionally have issues with soil compaction and lack of morning sunlight in certain spots which deters the growth of grass, but nothing really unusual

[Ian Larson]

Greg,

I agree that there are probably cases out there where a developer just took the word of what a USGA guy said. But lets also include independent
agronomic consultants. There are ALOT of projects, developers and construction companies. That already have a consultant that they normally
do business with and trust. USGA may never even be contacted in alot of cases.



SL_Solow,

I also agree but I would like to make this point. I dont think the USGA spec is insurance against criticism, its insurance against failure. Which may go hand in hand but the REAL motive is to ENSURE SUCCESS. The USGA is the good guy. They have devoted money towards research and development for the success of greens, superintendents and clubs.

"If there are problems they can say they followed the recommendations for state of the art construction."

     .....the USGA spec green is designed for ideal pore space that optimizes drainage while not sacrificing nutrient retention. That is all the
          USGA spec can control. It cannot control sunlight, water quality, water quantity, lack of grooming and cultural practices etc etc etc.

          My point with that is that if there is a problem with the greens, and they are USGA spec. There needs to be NUMEROUS other factors
          considered in the troubleshooting process before it gets to the fact that its a USGA spec green.



Bruce,

Your club is the perfect example as to why you shouldnt use anything other than the native. The club did its due diligence with getting it tested
and results showed it was was within spec and would drain well. Thats what its all about.





I cant think of anyone specific or a specific thread (maybe a couple) but I swear I remember very negative tones when it comes to the USGA and anything they are associated with, I think its interesting that we still havent had anyone step forward. Its not a crucifixion, I think it would make for some interesting debate about something that may be lingering under the surface and has never really been addressed.

[mike_malone]

I'm a very important member of the green cmte. but for some reason  I never get notices of the meetings and the chairman doesn't know me.

[TEPaul]

"If they go a different way, their keester is exposed."


Shelly:

I think you got that right. I was up at the USGA not long ago digging around in some of the old Green Section material and I found a mission statement when the USGA was beginning to develop the USGA spec green and the conclusion of the mission statement said:

"This is being proposed and suggested to significantly mininimize American architecture and American golf agronomic keester exposure."

[Bradley Anderson]

I have been reading all of the original USGA Green Committee journals from the 1920's. It may sound sappy, but I find myself feeling genuinely inspired as I read these old journals - just by how noble and pure the motives were of those men who started the USGA Green Committee, basically for protecting American golf, at that time in it's infancy, from agronomic charlatans.

One of their first efforts was in providing a laboratory for testing the purity of seed. At this time bentgrass seed was imported from Holland, and more often as not the seed was diluted with Red Top - basically a weed that looks like bentgrass, but quickly fades in the heat. The game of golf in America really was at the mercy of seed merchants who could not be trusted. Many of the adds that we see in the old magazines, were touting grass mixtures that were not ideal for golf.

The best grasses were collected from pacthes of greens, on the better clubs, and grown in experimental turf gardens. There were also turf gardens for testing various fertilizers. These gardens were planted all over the country (there were two right here in Detroit) where green keepers could observe the better varieties of grass, and various fertility programs.

All of this was done for the betterment of the game and to protect clubs from wasting their money.

The USGA was the first organization to undertake a very practical analysis of budgets for clubs, so that clubs could know if they were getting good value.

I would like to say that the GCSAA or the PGA were at the vanguard of these movements, but in fact the USGA got all of this started.

Vardon said that America would never produce championship golfers until it first produced good golf courses to play the game on. I think that that was also part of the mission of the USGA - to help in improving the prowess of our game.

This is one organization that began with very noble and pure motives. As someone who has worked with USGA green Section Agronomists over the years, I can say that the USGA really can be trusted as much now as it was when it began.

[Bradley Anderson]

The thing to keep in mind when we discuss push-up greens is the difficulty in producing a good push-up green from the native soils that existed at any given golf course in the country.

If the native soil on your golf course was on the clayey side of the spectrum, you needed to bring in other materials to amend the soil to help water move through the profile. Golf courses where the soils were more in the middle loamy area of the spectrum might be able to provide good greens without substantial amending. Then there were golf courses on the sandy side of the spectrum that had a difficult time getting the grass to root after it germinated. This is the issue (sandy soils) that might have really put Crump into his funk, but I digress.

The USGA provided a standard for building reliable greens anywhere in the world, that would all be the same. Now lets remember that the old push-up greens were not really that uniform from course to course, or even from green to green - not as uniform as what we are accustomed to today. It took many years of topdressing with USGA gradation sand to make every push-up green on a golf course uniform.

The USGA used the best research available for providing a uniform growing medium that would drain, hold water, and hold nutrients, in any part of the country. All you needed was to find a sand supplier, and a peat supplier.

That is pretty amazing when you think about it. Is it perfect? No. But there is no perfect agronomic model. I don't think there ever will be.

[Bradley Anderson]

Many of the push-up greens that were uniform were built with pre-mixed materials applied to the top three to six inches.

In Chicago there was a company called Frenzer that provided a greensmix that was 1 part sand, 1 part loam, and one part peat. Many of the great push-up greens in Chicago have a layer of Frenzer 1:1:1 that was the original construction layer.

Much of what passes today as "push-up green" was actually an imported greensmix, and not really the soil that was pushed up to the surface of the green from adjacent cuts.

Where these mixes differ from the USGA mix is in the amount of loam or clay that was in the black component of the mix. The USGA chose peat moss instead of local loam or clay sources because Peat was a mined and controllable amendment with results as predictable as sand.

[SL_Solow]

Ian, sorry for the delay in responding but it has been hectic in my world.  Please understand that I am a huge fan of the USGA's efforts in advancing the science involved in greenkeeping through the work of the green section.  I have worked with a number of their reps (have a seminar together tomorrow) and they have been uniformly terrific.  They also know more than I do in this area.  But I reserve the right to form my own opinions after I evaluate available information.

My only point was to suggest that the USGA method is viewed as "safe", not only because of the science but because it is easiest to justify politically for greenkeepers and green chairman. 

By the way, I have learned a lot from your posts on this and the related thread.  Thanks.

Tom Paul;  Given the size and shape of some of the keesters walking around golf courses and green committees, if the USGA achieved the goal you ascribed of lessening keester exposure it may have been one of their greatest services.

[Jeff Goldman]

Following on Shelly, using USGA specs can provide safety to the club because of potential liabilty for not meeting the specs.  if you contract for a USGA green, the place you obtain the materials from (and sometimes the contractor building the green) should warrant that they meet USGA specs, and the contractor should warrant that it will be constructed according to the specs.  So, if you send the materials to be tested before being used, you can send them back if they don't match.  If construction doesn't match specs (and you can prove it), the contractor can be liable.  A push-up green doesn't have those safeguards unless they are built in somehow, and I don't think a California green does either (as to the characteristics of the sand at least).

On the other hand, if you already have a USGA green or two, and they got sideways for whatever reason, it can be difficult to convince folks that its a good idea to do another one.  That's why club officials may tell members who ask that they are putting in "a sand-based green with a perched water table" rather than a USGA green.   

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Your posts #13 and #14 are really good ones in explaining what the USGA Green Section was trying to do early on and why. However, in those early years we can certainly not downplay the massive and years long scientific experiments and analysis carried on by the US Dept of Agriculture. Essentially they were the ones who were doing most all the scientific experimentation for the USGA and American golf, mostly at their experimental plots at their station in Arlington Virginia. The USGA had to reimburse them for their time and that of their employees but that was the arrangement with how it all began back in the mid-teens.

To my surprise, I now realize that Piper and Oakley and perhaps even the man who followed them never actually left the employ of the US Dept of Agriculture even when they were the chairmen of the USGA's Green Section. It was definitely very much a combined effort. I think what began to happen in the late 1920s and early 1930s and on was various universities began to pick up where the US Dept of Agriculture was beginning to leave off in this field of dedicated golf agronomic research.