Green Contour on USGA vs. Pushup

[Ben Sims]

Ben:

It is possible to build very undulating greens to USGA specs and nail the three layers and nail all the tie-ins -- but it is not NEARLY as easy to do as to build greens in native sand.

Our greens at Stonewall (North) and Stone Eagle and Rock Creek are all USGA greens, and there is a lot of contour in those three.  But it's hard to be as creative as we could be at Ballyneal or Old Macdonald, where you could literally decide to change/add/soften the contours the day before you planted the green, at no real cost.

Tom,

This is getting more to the heart of my question.  I'd like to research a way of producing "edge of the envelope" greens without having to go through the difficulties associated with USGA spec construction.  

Please don't reveal proprietary info, but how much would you--and others here--estimate that building USGA spec green adds to the construction cost?  I've also read where USGA greens are "safe" for the architect or builder in the future--in terms of litigation.  Is this true?  Why?

Also, I look at my rounds at Ballyneal/Old Mac vs. my round at Stone Eagle and one thing regarding the greens sticks out.  At Ballyneal and Old Mac, it seemed like the green tied into the fairway and other surrounds much more seamlessly and fluidly than at Stone Eagle.  Is this due in part to the difference in green construction?  

Jaeger,

Your difficulties at KBM's Heritage Creek is exactly what I am talking about.  It seems that there could be a way of keeping agressive "push-up" greens on sites other than sand.   XGD has been an answer for many clubs, including Oakmont and Merion.  Understanding surface drainage and areas of high stress/traffic has to be paramount in this, I would think.

Again though.  It's more about compaction than drainage.

[Tom_Doak]

Ben:

It is possible to build very undulating greens to USGA specs and nail the three layers and nail all the tie-ins -- but it is not NEARLY as easy to do as to build greens in native sand.

Our greens at Stonewall (North) and Stone Eagle and Rock Creek are all USGA greens, and there is a lot of contour in those three.  But it's hard to be as creative as we could be at Ballyneal or Old Macdonald, where you could literally decide to change/add/soften the contours the day before you planted the green, at no real cost.

Tom,

This is getting more to the heart of my question.  I'd like to research a way of producing "edge of the envelope" greens without having to go through the difficulties associated with USGA spec construction.  

Please don't reveal proprietary info, but how much would you--and others here--estimate that building USGA spec green adds to the construction cost?  I've also read where USGA greens are "safe" for the architect or builder in the future--in terms of litigation.  Is this true?  Why?

Also, I look at my rounds at Ballyneal/Old Mac vs. my round at Stone Eagle and one thing regarding the greens sticks out.  At Ballyneal and Old Mac, it seemed like the green tied into the fairway and other surrounds much more seamlessly and fluidly than at Stone Eagle.  Is this due in part to the difference in green construction?  

Ben:

The answer to your last question is probably yes.  Even as good as Eric is at making tie-ins off of false fronts and so forth [and I have never seen anyone better at doing that], the bottom line is that if it doesn't look perfect when everything is finished, you can't just take a swipe at the seam with a bulldozer to fix it!

I don't know how to do a real cost comparison between methods, because it depends on the materials and their costs.  The gravel blanket installation might cost $100,000 for 18 USGA greens, if you are just comparing the USGA and California methods.  Greens mix is very expensive -- we've paid anywhere from $25 to $75 a ton for it.  Here's the math:

20 greens times 6,000 square feet (medium sized for today) = 120,000 square feet
   times 12 inches of mix = 120,000 cubic feet / 27 = 4,800 cubic yards
   times 1.3 tons / cubic yard = 6,400 Tons
   times $50 per ton = $320,000 for the mix itself (not installed)

Installing the mix will take an A+ shaper one day per green plus some help from a hand labor crew.  That's probably another $100k, but you are probably going to spend most of that with other greens construction methods as well.

NOTE:  One advantage of the USGA green is that once the subgrade is done, the die is cast, and my job on that green is done ... my associates just have to follow the layers to the top.  When we are building greens out of sand, as here in Florida, the yang to the yin is that it's so easy to change the green surface that unless I am there at the last minute for each green -- which I'm not -- then the final contours are really up to the associate who is floating it out, with only his judgement and his memory of what I tried to achieve to go by.  There is no reference point.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,

I've been talking with other folks--mostly Don Mahaffey--about the methods and drawbacks of each.  I seem to notice longer lines and less abrupt changes in the USGA method.  We've talked about how some shapers attack an area by keeping "material on the blade" and create these long and fluid contours.  Other guys work in a small area and push small amounts/short distances to achieve more small and abrupt movements.  Is this a product of green construction? 

Also, have you ever felt the need to use the USGA method because it is more "defensible" if a green happened to fail in the future?

--I know I am keying on Tom, but others in the construction business, please respond--

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ben,

Sadly, yes, many feel as if a lawyer would use building against an "industry standard" against them.

I recently played a course that was famous in golf industry circles for a lawsuit that bankrupted a well known contractor.  When the greens failed, it was pointed out that the USGA standard (to which they were built) recommended 6-24" perc rate per hour and tests a year after opening showed the drainage was 5.9"/hour.  Contractor lost that one, even with lots of testimony to the effect that the slower perc rate was put in place to best deal with local conditions AND that it is well known that perc rates slow down over time, even in the USGA spec.

When an owner doesn't have enough money, he will be more likely to sue his way out of whatever problems he has.  I know one contractor who is currently involved in five lawsuits, although some are him suing an owner for non payments, and the others are owners suing for supposed non performance which is highly questionable at best.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I've been talking with other folks--mostly Don Mahaffey--about the methods and drawbacks of each.  I seem to notice longer lines and less abrupt changes in the USGA method.  We've talked about how some shapers attack an area by keeping "material on the blade" and create these long and fluid contours.  Other guys work in a small area and push small amounts/short distances to achieve more small and abrupt movements.  Is this a product of green construction? 

Also, have you ever felt the need to use the USGA method because it is more "defensible" if a green happened to fail in the future?

--I know I am keying on Tom, but others in the construction business, please respond--

Ben:

In your first paragraph, I don't think that is anything more than different styles for different shapers as to how they like to build things.

As for going to USGA construction, that decision depends a lot on who my client is, and who's his superintendent [if there is already one on board].  I am more than happy to use the California method in any climate, if the superintendent suggests it.  I am just not a believer in the magic of the perched water table.  But if my client and his superintendent insist that a USGA green is the only way to go, well, it's their money, and I'm not crazy enough to go against both of them.

In the most extreme case, we built one set of USGA greens on a site that was 100% perfect sand.  You might be able to guess where that was, but I won't identify it here.  All I can say was that it was a total waste of close to $1 million -- or, more money than I got paid to do the job.

[Ben Sims]

This is fun stuff.  I just used a bunch of info on this thread to save my developer, "Mr Big", somewhere in the neighborhood of 40K on the greens mix, (in class, not real life) using the equation above.

I don't have enough ammo to take on the USGA spec green yet, but hopefully I'll learn.  Looking at the whole process though, it seems like a way to save your ass rather than build a green.   Why not pushup a green and make the mix the final grading material, rather than floating a bathtub that requires pipe every 15 feet, and specific gravel that has been tested for bridging factor?    

I just feel like it's too complicated for it's own good.

[Ian Larson]

This topic has come up so much on here since Ive been a member and I always feel the thread itself is way more complicated than what a USGA green is, how it works and why it even exists.

The USGA green is the solution to a problem. The problem was American pushup greens failing because the soil held too much water for too long causing turf loss and course closures year after year costing a ton of money over a period of time.

The USGA gets a bad rap for it. Owners dont like the sound of the upfront money cost of it and architects dont like it because of its limitations in their art form and later renovations. The USGA does not make a dime off of their concept. It was simply a solution to a problem that continually occurred.

Theres a situation for each method. Does a USGA need to be used in every situation? No. Should a pushup be used in every situation? Obviously not because thats why the USGA green came to existence. The difference between the two is that the USGA CAN be used in any situation and perform well. The same thing cant be said about the pushup. To say either should always be used in any situation is ignorant and is like being a right or left wing extremist. Each type needs to be considered most appropriate for the situation and environment.

As Kyle answered earlier one of the reasons for the matching of the layer depths is cost. If the subgrade just tilted from back to front for drainage and the front of the green required a few feet of gravel thats alot of money wasted on gravel.

Mike Young also said that the most important part of the gravel layer is at the interface of the sand and gravel. Thats absolutely correct. Once the water hits that gravel interface its gone and gone quick. Theres nothing as far as micropores to perch it anymore. Its all macropores. Thats why the USGA has it at 6 inches. 6 inches is a manageable depth to grade it at. Imagine trying to keep a 3 inch depth? 3 inches is nothing and would be a pain in the ass. Theres nothing scientific about the 6 inch number.

The importance of the gravel layer is its job of equalizing the hydraulic pressure across the entire green. A soil subgrade under sand doesnt accomplish that. The gravel draws water down while the mix tries to keep it perched and the USGA method is simply the formula to finding a perfect balance between the two forces. Retaining plant available water and draining plant UNavailable water. Very simple.

If someone thinks they dont need a USGA method and is a hero for saving the money upfront...and never has a problem, GREAT! But if they have a hard summer like last year and have to close down the course because of alot of rain, slow draining greens and high disease pressure...you will regret biting the bullet with putting the money up for the investment in the first place because those greens wont get any better anytime soon. The plan will be to aggressively ammend it with sand to get it where a USGA already is.

I think it should also be noted that Dove Mountain accomplished severely sloped greens with the USGA layers. So much that they had to be tamed down to a 9 on the stimp and theres nothing wrong with that. The fact is that its possible to achieve small and severe sloping on a USGA green. They later went in and softened them and I think thats because the PGA cant handle the thought of greens at a 9.

As far as severe high spots being hydrophobic or drier and the severe lows holding more water, the solution for that is simple as well. Dont blanket spray all the greens with one type of wetting agent. Use a wetting agent that retains water in the high spots and use an agent that infiltrates in the low spots. Problem solved. There will always be handwatering on any greens if they are being maintained properly.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian,

have to disagree with you. A pushup can be used in almost any situation if built correctly. Most pushups that fail have either been built or maintained badly. The same can be said for USGA. At the end of the day an good SUper will make almost anything decent work and a bad super will make nothing work.

Jon

[Ian Larson]

Jon

I think your statement is true for the UK but not in the states where there are regions that don't have the ideal soil in the area to manage the possible amounts of rainfall as well as the summer heat and humidity. Throw in an area that requires greens to be flushed for salts and you can have a disaster. I went to visit my girlfriends family in Southport last year. Played at their club S&A, then Formby and Birkdale. Having pushup greens there during the summer is not the same as having pushup greens in Philadelphia. If I were building a new course in Philly I would go USGA everytime. If I were building around Southport, I would go pushup everytime. I think this past summer in the states has shown that no matter how talented the super Mother Nature can win. And I would say she won more on the clubs with pushup greens maintained at a high level.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian,

it seems to be a standard line that everything is possible in the UK but most it is not possible in the USA and it is quite honestly wearing a little thin. Yes, you do have more humidity which the UK does not I will concide that. You are mistaken in your point that pushups cannot drain as well as USGA as it is possible though not always the case so thats no argument. Also the need to flush greens is a manmade problem not natural though if you have to irrigate with effluent then USGA is probably the way to go.

I am not saying that USGA is wrong or that pushups are better but people who say you cannot get pushup greens to work because of the climate are WRONG. With the right mix then the climate will never be the problem.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

I agree pretty much with Ian's post. I do think the UK is different and we get pretty lucky not getting extremes in weather, that aside we get a dormant season where we get minimal growth but still get playand other places don't get.

The Key to a good non USGA green is still the quality of the rootzone mix. A USGA conforming sand/peat mix should pretty much always be used.

Contours in the green can be quite agressive in USGA, I think you just need to understand that the underlying contours in the gravels and the grits need to be a bit more oblique, because everything gets smoothed with the rootzone.

A big MUST MUST MUST I think is keep that sandpro off the green as much as possible if you have contours. My last set I built have a bit of twist in them and I never lowered the rake attachment, just used the wheels to lightly compress and then hand raked. I am in Spain at the moment and many of the greens here are dire because everything has been dragged semi level.

[Tim Nugent]

Contours in the green can be quite agressive in USGA, I think you just need to understand that the underlying contours in the gravels and the grits need to be a bit more oblique, because everything gets smoothed with the rootzone.

A big MUST MUST MUST I think is keep that sandpro off the green as much as possible if you have contours. My last set I built have a bit of twist in them and I never lowered the rake attachment, just used the wheels to lightly compress and then hand raked. I am in Spain at the moment and many of the greens here are dire because everything has been dragged semi level.

Adrain, don't confuse the machine with the operator.  I personally feel that a sand pro is a good tool for floating out a green and insuring a seamless tie-in to the perimeter. However, I don't use a rake or paddles like bunker maintenance.  Rather, I use a 5' box and a steel key-stone drag matt and float them out myself.  Not only does this nsure I get exactly the contours that I want but also I know exactly what is supposed to be there.  Very often, an architect (or his associate) will approve the subgrade contours and assume that, because all layers are supposed to mirror that subgrade, their job is done.  Not true.  It is very easy to lose subgrade contours with the successive layers.  And, if a different person shapes the subgrade than the one who finishes it off, even more room for error.

I do agree about the subgrade being more oblique and that ever step is a melting-out process.  Like makeing sausage, owners and supers should't see that step, they tend to get overly excited at the exaggerated contours of the subgrade.

Another error inexperienced construction personnel make it not realizing that the high and low points of slopes will shift from subgrade to final grade, but I'm not giving that one out for free.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Tim - I should have added that I got on the sandpro myself on the more contoured greens. I think the steel drag mat should be kept off though, thats where a bit of damage is done in over smoothing, but it depends on the operator like anything.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

your post gives a few good points. Unfortunately non of them address the subject of this thread.

Jon

[Ian Larson]

Jon,

First lets all agree that "pushup" is a broad term. What are you "pushing up"? Whatever is on site...if your importing its not a pushup. "Pushup" can be sand or it can be clay. I think in general when you pushup in the UK it usually ends up as an acceptable growing medium. I would argue against that in the US for most sites. When golf came to the US the status quo of "pushing up" was used and failed because the soil was not suitable for the climate. It drained too slow and held too much water during periods of high humidity and disease pressure. Hence the evolution of the USGA green. So why is everyone jumping down the USGA's throat just because they were the acting group to help solve a problem? They were the ones that basically designed a growing medium to mimick that of the UK while also being able to handle the extreme climates in the US.


I will also point out that you are absolutely wrong about the need for flushing salts in greens is man made. I first experienced flushing greens at Riviera 7 years ago. Its because the poa annua could not handle the salt build up from the marine layer (sea fog) that came in all the time. And besides that flushing a green flushes out bicarbs and is a great way to aerate the green in between aerifications. I feel its one of the most understudied and under appreciated greenkeeping practices. And the only way to flush is having a growing medium that drains well. You cant flush a typical pushup green in the US without just saturating it and doing harm. You always can with a USGA green. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Hi Ian,

A push up green is usually the soil on site (often taken from one location on the site where it is best) and then amended (usually with sand) in order to improve its draining qualities. There is no reason why on many sites the local soil will not be more than acceptable for producing a good root zone.

I can see your point about the fog bringing in a certain level of salt. Often people have the habit of blaming something because it is convenient and means there is no in depth look at the whole problem though I am sure this is not the case with yourself. I therefore take it that if this was the only factor for killing the grass on the greens that you also have to flush the fairways and roughs as if the fog was the only source of the problem it would also kill the grass in these areas as well.

Funnily enough we also get the odd sea fret here in the UK but I have never heard of clubs having to flush their greens due to this.

by the way, think about your statement of ' the soil is not suitable for the climate' if this is true then is the whole of north America a desert incapable of growing anything except of course where there is USGA root zone? or could it be that the push up greens done and or the grass and maintenance choices were maybe not suitable.

I am not saying that USGA is not the best safe bet but if you are saying that a push up green cannot succeed in north America I would say you are clearly mistaken.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - I would say exactly the opposite. In the UK it is very rare that local soil can be used that will make a conforming mix. It depends on scales of quality though.

If you are producing a  greens growing medium it needs to be sterile, as soon as you add local soil, you take a very high risk of buggering it.

I am not against taking the layers away from the USGA, but dont take the sandmix away.

[Tony Ristola]

I recall one associate from a well know and liked firm stating (about 15-20 years ago) that topsoil greens would function fine if properly built and maintained, which fits with what Jon said earlier. Wish I had the exact quote.

This is an interesting vid. The 2:39 and 3:15 mark especially. Once again, Jon is on the money.
http://punchbowlgolf.com/2009/04/chechessee-creek-club/

In the old days there wasn't a need to have the greens consistent. That is a modern phenomenon. Some greens would be naturally softer, others naturally firmer and the golfer would take them into consideration. Of course the superintendent would try to get things somewhat uniform but it wasn't the end of the world if there was some variation.

As for USGA specs, someone explained perched and hanging water tables. And that you better follow the specs. There's a course in EUland where the builder suggested to the owner he use a local, cheaper, finer native sand in a 40cm thickness. It's a method he's used and it works  well; back to Jon... a good super would have no problems. Well, the architect would have nothing of it, and went with "USGA" with one variation. They had to truck the sand 2-hours, so they made the rootzone layer thinner to save money. Problem is the thinner layer didn't allow the water through the rootzone and puddled on the surface; it's in a rainy region to boot. OUCH!

Near the Baltic coast I built a 9-hole "provisional" course for a developer who planned 36-holes and I convinced to build 18 good holes. The provisional course was planned to be eaten up by the clubhouse, parking and hotel in the future, leaving a few holes or parts thereof for fun. We used native sand. As per Jon's point, for 3-greens we excavated sand from the best area and trucked it in. The remainder of the greens I pushed it in from the vicinity of the green. One green was pretty silty stuff, but I ensured there was enough surface drainage (as there is no tile in the greens), and 13-years on they still function fine.  Took all of 7-weeks to build. (The owner died after the 9-holes were complete, and what was first planned as provisional has become permanent).
http://www.golfclub-fischland.de/html/body_bahn_2.html
http://www.golfclub-fischland.de/html/body_bahn_3.html
http://www.golfclub-fischland.de/html/body_bahn_4.html
http://www.golfclub-fischland.de/html/body_bahn_7.html
http://www.golfclub-fischland.de/html/body_bahn_8.html
http://www.golfclub-fischland.de/html/body_bahn_9.html

[Adrian_Stiff]

In the UK it is very rare to find suitable soils that conform to USGA specs. Now if you want to move the goalposts and accept a lower quality roozone, you could use anything but it will give you problems. Great soils that remain are in protected areas now, our newer golf courses are far more likely to be on soils not ideal.

Like all things you get what you pay for, any green has to built properly and maintained properly.

If you are building a proper golf course in the UK and you expect it to perform for 40,000 rounds per year IMO its a no brainer, if its a mom and pop things are different.

[Jeff_Brauer]

While I build mostly USGA and California greens, rather than pure push ups (no sand where I work, usually) I believe there is no perfect answer.

The easier the climate, and the lower the traffic, the less the need for some kind of sand based green.  And, its sort of like going to McDonald's vs a local restaurant.  It may not be the greatest food, but you know darn sure what you are going to get, so its easier to grow a green in that way, vs. having to learn your soils, etc.  (although there is certainly some of that anywhere and with any type green)

The USGA method was developed to counter some problems in native soils, like compaction.  No coincidence that it came about just as the irrigation and pellet fertilizer industries had matured enough to replace the weaknesses of a sand based green  - water retention and nutrient retention.  But, its not without its own, different set of challenges, and the fact that the USGA has tinkered with the method over the years shows that. 

Ask any USGA rep and they will tell you that in any given region of the US, about 2% of greens fail every year, and that failure is usually related to weather extremes.  And that USGA greens fail at about the same rate as others in those conditions.  This year, we will probably see some failures around DFW, because of the extended freezes, but it is unlikely that any will be blamed on any particular type of construction.

[Ian Larson]

Jon

Be careful not to take what I'm saying out of context. Of course there are plenty, no numerous, examples of successful pushup greens. My point is not say otherwise. "pushup" is such a broad term that if a guy from the states is using the term against a guy in the UK we could be talking about completely different things.

I'm absolutely all for a pushup green as long as it has at least the minimum amount of sand content in it so it can drain at least half decently. I feel that the golf purists on here are so purist they overlook the longterm effects of pushing up a green with whatever is on site just so it's cheaper, more convenient and lends itself more to their artform.

I had Carl Scwhartzkopf who used to be on the USGA Green Section as one of my professors at Horry-Georgetown. The first day of class he asked the class "What's the 3 most important fucking things about a golf course?" He then wrote 2 big "D"s on the board and said "No it's not a pair of tits!" Wrote the third "D" and said "Drainage Drainage Drainage". Needless to say he had fun classes and was my favorite professor. But that was the first valuable lesson I learned. And it's true. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again....I don't care what your growing grass on. It has to drain and it has to drain well. The most important thing to a golf course isn't whether the architect prefers to sculpt his greens pushup style because it's how he likes to shape them. It's whether that soil will drain.

If your in an area where you build a pushup green and you have to use the cupcutter type where you have to pound it in with a rubber mallet because it's so damn dense and compact I feel you made a bad choice. That's an obvious indicator that water is going to percolate at a turtles pace. Then throw on top of that a summer like last summer and you are going to have course closures in the peak season.

I look at it like insurance. You pay for insurance on an investment. It sucks to pay that especially if nothing happens. But in the event it does you're glad you did. If you take cheap route on your investment you get what you pay for and eventually you'll get caught with your pants down. So unless your on a site with sandy native soil and the environment is historically hot, rainy and humid....USGA all the way. You can still achieve great green contours and the investment is saf[er] than just pushing up lousy soil.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

I for one am not trying to move the goal posts. It seems that you believe that the USGA method is the best and all other methods are inferior. With such a mindset it is of course impossible for you to look at this subject objectively and so i hope this is not the case. You seem to want to prevent any other point of view with such statements as 'great soils that are left are in protected areas'. How do you know this? Is there some new law that protects any area with soils suitable for root zones? PLEASE!!!!

Push ups can drain just as well as USGA and also usually have better organic content. I think you might find FFL from Germany make an interesting read. Yes, there are some soils that are not suitable but many are. It is basically a case of adding the correct amount of the correct sand. Also, I would not always fumigate (sterilise the soil) unless there was something really nasty in it.

Ian,

I certainly do not want to take what you have said out of context and apologise if this is the case. For me with greens it is drainage that is the top priority this is not only the root zone mix but also the surrounds. Yes, you are correct that USGA is a safe way to insure a certain standard of root zone but it will not guarantee a good playing surface.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Jon - The very basic ABCs require that our soils drain well and the USGA and other have come up with percolation rates that qualify and percolation rates that dont, equally what percolates at X today may percolate at X+ in a years time, or under 50,000 rounds, 100,000 rounds. The USGA have stipulated many other aspects that are "BEST", some of their best's may be marginal, but grain shape, hardness are important and the amounts of finer materials found in the mix is important. If you buy a rootzone of 80% Silica sand, 20% milled peat, that is pretty much the best, you cant get better, so by definition everything else becomes lesser. Our 80-20 contains minimal fines or clays or silts, as soon as you use native soils you run that risk. There will be areas where great soils will naturally occur, the great linksland areas of today are likely to be protected, new links courses are extremely rare.

The problem with native soil is the silts and clays and just a small % can be catastrophe. Whilst I think the USGA method is best, I think the USGA rootzone is the key, so I would build a green without grits and gravels, but I would never mix a native soil that did not pass the lab tests. I am not against cheap and cheerfulls in there right situ, but for serious golf courses they are ways to save money, but dont do it with the greens mix.

[Jon Wiggett]

Adrian,

your answer is full of the usual lines, assumptions and OTT statement s that often appear when such things are discussed. I am surprised as I would have thought you had more to offer to the discussion apart from this very narrow POV. It is interesting that the land that WAS protected is now LIKELY to be. The USGA have set many standards most of which I would agree are top grade. This does not stop other methods from being equally as good. The USGA is the classic one size fits all and as such there will probably be a slight variation that will suit the local environment a little better. Even with a push up green in most instances the peculation rate must be within the boundaries and particle size/shape should also be pretty much there.

I do not think we are so far apart in what we think and try to achieve but you seem to use a 1 plan strategy where as I use a broader palate. You really should read the FLL specs. I am sure you would find them interesting.

Jon

[Jon Wiggett]

Tony R,

good post that makes a lot of excellent points. It is always good to hear the ideas and experiences of others.

Jon