Interesting recipe.

I would think that the ingredients won't be the same but some of the concepts still live.

Peter,

if it worked back then, then it will still work today although you may find enviromental issues with the powdered bone bit.

That sounds like the it is the method of making greens developed by Frederick W. Taylor.  Taylor was a Philadelphian well known in his day for his work on scientific management; time and efficiency analysis, standardization and other large-scale industrial management applications.  Taylor was also an avid golfer and had a patent on a putter and his green building method.

In his desire to develop better greens, he came up with a model and experimented on their effectiveness.  The greens were used on the old Sunnybrook GC and at Pine Valley where some of them (Tom Paul may know which ones, I believe the 1st) still exist today.  Taylor used hundreds of test plots and recognized the need for good seed of suitable grasses, a good medium for germinating the seeds, and a fertile soil that had a high water-holding capacity yet drained well.

His results indicated two diagonal layers (slants) that would aid water-holding and drainage beneath the seed germinating layer and the upper and lower blankets.  One of the slants consisted of three parts clay and one part cow manure (3" wide) and the other was chopped and decayed peat moss mixed with cow manure at a 9:1 ratio.  The slants were pre-mixed and made into slabs that were laid out with a depth of 12".  It must have been very difficult to construct.

His work was summarized in "Turf for Golf Courses" by Piper and Oakley after Taylor's death in 1915.  

Wayne,
I don't know if I would try that today as Marc says it could be scary plus it seems more complicated than gravel and a 12 inch rootzone......
However, I got several IM's(6) from supts on the other thread saying they would rather have high soil greens than the USGA type.  One of these supts has been at several nationally high profile courses, including three in your town.  Another had been at a high profile course in your area and has his course in the south where he growns on a push up with 4 inches of sand.....he kept grass all summer when many of the "USGA" greens around did not.....
AGAIN, I am not a supt.....but IMHO it all comes down to the guy growing the grass.....WHILE I don't believe anyone can build more than 80% of their surfaces to USGA spec..I do think that some type of 12inch minimum 85/15 rootzone with drainage is probably the best for all....I still am not sure I can go for a parallel perched table though...JMO
Mike

Thanks, gents.

Wayne, I take it then that this type of green construction wasn't the 'standard' of the day, but just one of many early experiments on green/turf growing?

If so, I'm wondering what Taylor (and others) were using a precedents? I mean, what areas/subjects/practices in agronomy or agriculture that Taylor DID know about were the basis for the experiments on areas that he DIDN'T know about?  

Thanks
Peter

I don't know if someone already mentioned this, but the "recipe" was likely not intended to get anything but natural irrigation. That recipe would be a disaster with todays irrigation habits.

Joe

Quote from: Mike_Young on June 01, 2007, 07:17:17 AM

However, I got several IM's(6) from supts on the other thread saying they would rather have high soil greens than the USGA type.  One of these supts has been at several nationally high profile courses, including three in your town.  Another had been at a high profile course in your area and has his course in the south where he growns on a push up with 4 inches of sand.....he kept grass all summer when many of the "USGA" greens around did not.....

Mike,  

Thanks again for the e-mail but here is what I don't get--Those supers I mentioned who let's say used the "USGA specs" (at least as a guideline) are more than happy to say who they are and what club they work at.  William Shirley, Billy Fuller, Mark Esoda, Mark Hoban etc.....

I appreciate that not everyone feels that way but why aren't any of the 6 supers you allude to willing to say--"hey I think the USGA spec stuff is over rated.  I am so and so and I've been at such and such club for x number of years and here is how I did my greens?"  

It would seem that there would be benefits of an open discussion/discourse and it seems like those guys are "hiding"??!!  I know who you mentioned and their courses and I don't see why they wouldn't want people to know their courses and their successes (and challenges) with a process maybe a little different than the "text book" approach.

I will say I read today that Oakmont has never re-built their greens in their 103 year history!!  That's unreal!!  I'd say it's a great natural growing environment and a history of excellent turf care.







 

Chris ,
I sent you an IM....
All of these guys would be glad to speak with you....I don't know how many of them EVER say anything on this site.....so it is not my right to speak their names here.....I also have never heard any of the guys you mention on here either....
You mention Oakmont....I don't think Merion has either.....And i think if you look at the Summer stress months in Philly and Atlanta...temps and humidity are very close.....
Also.....trivia..How many US Opens have been played on USGA greens as of last year....And what percentage of other USGA championships are played on USGA greens.....

OMG - It's THAT Taylor - the father of Taylorism?  

This may be the first GCA thread that speaks of a man who's work caused a number of riots!

Thanks again, gents.

"This Taylor green construction research became part of the basis of collected research on agronomy and golf course construction and maintenance methods that Wilson and Piper and Oakley et al eventually turned into the USGA Green Section...."

TE
Would you know if there was much 'cross-pollination' going on around this time, i.e. roughly from the time of Taylor's death to the creation of the USGA Green Section?

What I mean is, did the research/experiments taking place on the east coast under men like Taylor find their way out to the west coast, and to architects and agronomists working out there, and vice-versa? Taylor was obviously publishing his thoughts, but how 'applicable' did others working in the different climates/soils in, say, California, find them?

In other words, if at the time we took the 10-15 top people working in golf design and construction from across the United States, would they have been sharing information, comparing results, and/or using the same methods?

Or were there ‘parallel streams’ going on for a while until something – e.g. off Joe H’s point, the wider-spread use of irrigation and its affects on green construction – brought them closer together?

Did the creation of the USGA Green Section prove to be a pivotal turning point in this regard?  


Thanks
Peter    

From Chapter II - Soils for Turf Grasses:

"The special soil requirements of the various turf grasses differ considerabley, but for the best results they all require a deep, fertile, MOISTURE HOLDING (my emphasis), yet well drained soil....For putting-greens every effort should be made to secure as nearly perfect soil conditions as possible before seeding...It is a serious error to seed before a satisfactory soil can be established, as this can never be entirely remedied later by any system of top-dressing."

I was feeling pretty cocky about things until:

"The moisture-holding capacity of the soil should be high.  This is best insured by a good content of clay and of vegetable matter"

Oh well, still a great read so far.

CR is worse than Saddam ever was re; the chemical warfare!  

Here's a Rymer story you may not have heard--traveling back to the hotel after the practice round in NC with the team and Charlie had decided to wear some old sneakers around all damn day without any socks and then he took the shoes off--his farting actually IMPROVED the stench of those damn shoes.

Anyway, it gets so bad Bill McDonald throws the shoes out the window--next day on the way back to the course Bill swears he sees a dead dog on the side of the road--with one of Chuck's shoes hanging out of its mouth.  

Patrick - thanks.

This is what is interesting to me: that though agronomy was in its infancy, there were people like Taylor who (if the fact that some of the greens built by his method are still extant is any indication) figured out some wonderful solutions to the problems they were facing. But even then, as others have pointed out here, Taylor's 'solution' might mean that it would be difficult to build greens with much undulation in them; or was primarily aimed at ensuring that the greens didn't die of thirst in those pre-irrigation days.

So interest one for me is "how much of the design of some of the early green complexes was impacted by agronomy issues, and how did those issues differ in different climates"?

But let's say for the sake of argument that Taylor's formula for greens was flat-out a wonderful solution.  In those early infancy days, was this information being spread and shared widely, and/or were there enough "Taylors" around to understand these possible solutions, experiment with them, and add meaningfully to a process of ever-more sophisticated knowledge?  And if so, would someone like Max Behr, as just one example, be utilizing this "shared knowledge" while building Lakeside?

So interest two for me is "is there a baseline of knowledge that we can safely assume the great early designers all shared, irregardless of where in the country they were working, and is this basic knowledge/experience implicit in all their 'talk' (in books and articles) that has come down to us?

[edit: In other words, in order to understand what they're actually saying, can we assume what was implicit for them?]

I'm guessing that all this might be more complex than I think, not least because --as Bob Crosby has pointed out on other threads -- we can't forget the thousands of courses that were being built by amateurs around the country, sometimes with modest means and modest goals that failed right off the bat or have long since disappeared.  

But if I can put what I'm trying to learn in a nuthsell, I'd say: I would like to be able to make a more educated guess about what the great early designers actually 'meant' (i.e. what THEY THEMSELVES meant, given their "shared" context) when they talked about 'an excellent green' or a 'natural course'.

Peter