The culprit ?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Are USGA green specs the primary culprit with respect to the absence of pronounced contouring in putting surfaces ?

Does the construction process prevent greens such as # 1 at NGLA from ever being built ?

Forget greens speeds and the trend toward flattening.

Have USGA green specs been responsible for dull greens ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Seems like we have discussed this before, but no, at least directly.

If they have been responsible, its not for technical reasons, but budget reasons.  Since they cost a lot to build, there is pressure to reduce green size to the absolute minimum possible, and as a result, subtelties that reduce cuppping space are taken out.

As I once described, even a six inch high bump takes out several hundred sq. feet of cup area.  How? At a maximum 10 to 1 slope, it takes up a ten foot circle minimum.  However, no one will cup within at least three feet of it, so the total area taken out of effective use is a 16 foot diameter circle, or about 192 sq. feet.  A one foot bump would take out a 26 foot circle, or almost 500 SF.  

On budget strapped courses,  that small feature is adding at least 10% to each green surface in the name of "interest." (I put quotes there, because like any other feature that may prevent a direct shot/putt at the flag, lots of golfers don't find them interesting at all......

[redanman]

Primary?  Perhaps

Pretty much

A cause-effect relationship to pass the T-test is your homework, but some would say yes.  

I say that the demands for turf and especially greens perfection is a major culprit.  It cannot be forgoten, that would influence scientific method.

Modern golfers demand fast greens, whether or not they understand or can putt on them.  Modern golfers a a sorry lot;   generally the richer they are then the worse they are on these matters.

Very wealthy people are often, not always very stupid.

[George Pazin]

Very wealthy people are often, not always very stupid.

Not stupid, really. The problem with having some intelligence - at least, from what I've been told - is that one tends not to realize what one doesn't know. The people you're referencing think that, since they're a successful lawyer, doctor, Wall Street guy, whatever, they're obviously smarter than the architect, so they should know more than him. Well, they're not necessarily smarter, they just chose a different profession, and they don't necessarily know about fields other than their own.

 

Anyway, Tom D has referenced just what Patrick hypothesizes, at least, in my recollection. I think he said they prefer to not work with the USGA method, as it hampers creativity in the later stages. Of course, that's my interpretation of what he wrote, so don't quote me on that.

Not having seen NGLA #1, is it impossible to build a USGA green that way, or simply unlikely?

[Matt MacIver]

Stupid might be a little harsh – maybe it’s all in one’s perspective, i.e. where and how they learned the game.  This thread, along with recent others (divots vs. GIR, for instance) got me thinking: What is Golf?  And What Should it Be?  

Everyone will have a different answer which impacts how & where they play, what courses they enjoy, etc.  Much of one's answer comes from their first experiences with golf, and who taught them.  

For example, for the most part I was self-taught (if you can call it that) in college and thought it would be an enjoyable way to spend some time outdoors.  But uneven lies, balls in divots, spikemarks, "rub of the green" were all unacceptable, I expected to find everything manicured, fine-tuned and fair -- Americanized.  Clearly if the course didn’t have enough money to level the fairway, then it couldn’t have been much or a course.  

It wasn't until I grew an appreciation for and an understanding of the game (and the Rules) that homogenous fairways, greens and courses weren’t what I wanted at all.  I suspect I would have known that a lot earlier in my life had I been taught by someone that knew the history of the game and what “good” courses were….or I grew up in the U.K.  

[Paul_Turner]

I don't think that USGA specs have necessarily made greens flatter.  Many modern courses, with USGA spec greens, have a high degree of contour.

But I do think the USGA specs make greens duller.  The level of complexity in contour is often missing.

[Jay Flemma]

Well are not Black Mesa, Tobacco Road and The Rawls Course all built to spec?   How bout Red Tail and Apache Stronghold?

Seems to me the most important factor in building contour into the greens is the architect...if Doak, Strantz and Silva can do it repeatedly...

[cary lichtenstein]

Keep the green speeds down to 8 and bring back the contours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Please

[Tony_Muldoon]

Good question but there's another related one.  When Sean and I played Swinley Forrest (1910 Colt) last week I was knocked out by the green contouring.  Yes most of what we see  was obviously planned, like the ripples on the right hand side of no 11 or the general slope or fall of the green.  But although I can't prove it I think a lot of the interest in older greens comes from what I shall call 'micro contouring' and I believe a lot of that is down to age, maintenance and (mainly) subsidence.  Now with all that gravel and sand in a USGA spec you've got a much firmer base and you are going to see a lot less movement.  So is subsidence a major factor in importance in explaining the charm of old greens adding to the original architect’s intentions?

Over time old greens develop character and where it doesn’t work committee’s will surgically deal with it, but where it works - magic.

[Jim Sweeney]

It's not the construction, regardless of the type; it is the demand for fast speeds.

Many courses have push up greens that are very fast. Not all USGA spec greens are.

[Bob_Huntley]

Pat,

I am not sure if Rees Jones followed the USGA path at MPCC on the Dunes Restoration/Renovation, but he sure provided a lot of interest. Some of the contours are just plain magical.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"The level of complexity in contour is often missing."

I think Paul pretty much has it there. Jeff Brauer says it's cost--USGA spec greens may be harder and therefore more costly to build a level of contour complexity into. That's no doubt true but why more costly?

The way Bill Coore described it to me was that it's possible to build any kind of complex surface contours with USGA specs but the problem with USGA specs vs push-ups or even something like the California method, is with USGA specs you pretty much have to match fairly presicely the bottom layering with the contours on top---and that's a lot of work.

But why do you have to match the underlayer with the top contours on USGA specs? The way he described it to me is it's all about drainage. The problem is water (and the things used on greens that go along with water drainage---eg chemicals, fertilizer etc) doesn't always drain straight down as we might think it does---it drains sideways too.

And if the layering underneath doesn't match the top contours it can get sort of like blood vessels that are constricted in certain places. If you have that on greens there's just not an even enough distribution of moisture and all that goes with it and that can really create agronomic problems.

Coore said his basic philosophy with USGA spec vs say California method vs push-up construction is to just defer the decision to the superintendent, if possible, because he said he's the one who's got to maintain the greens. It's probably no coincident that Bill Coore started out as a superintendent.

[peter_p]

   The USGA method prescribes a number of layers. Is it too difficult to corectly build a succession of layers as the contour varies? The flatter the green pad the easier it is for constructioneers to set the levels evenly.
   The death certificate of slower, contoured greens may not show USGA greens as the cause of death, but is would certainly be a contributing factor.

[Paul_Turner]

Good question but there's another related one.  When Sean and I played Swinley Forrest (1910 Colt) last week I was knocked out by the green contouring.  Yes most of what we see  was obviously planned, like the ripples on the right hand side of no 11 or the general slope or fall of the green.  But although I can't prove it I think a lot of the interest in older greens comes from what I shall call 'micro contouring' and I believe a lot of that is down to age, maintenance and (mainly) subsidence.  Now with all that gravel and sand in a USGA spec you've got a much firmer base and you are going to see a lot less movement.  So is subsidence a major factor in importance in explaining the charm of old greens adding to the original architect’s intentions?

Over time old greens develop character and where it doesn’t work committee’s will surgically deal with it, but where it works - magic.

Tony

V old pic of the 11th.

[Troy Alderson]

USGA greens are a factor.  As speed demands increase, greens get flatter and USGA greens are "a sure thing".

I like the idea of taking the local soil type, sending it into a lab to determine what needs to be added to it to create a good draining profile.

I like the old MacKenzie greens from pictures like at (Sitwell?).  Deep contours at a higher HOC "height of cut".  Forget speed, bring in the contours.

Troy

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

It's not the construction, regardless of the type; it is the demand for fast speeds.

Jim,

I think it's definitely the method of construction.
Making a multi-layered green with substantive contour vis a vis USGA specs is extremely difficult.[/color]

Many courses have push up greens that are very fast. Not all USGA spec greens are.

Speed isn't the issue, substantive contour is.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Guys, and particularly Pat:

Why do you think USGA spec greens were invented? What to you think they were primarily trying to accomplish? Why do you think the precusor to the USGA spec green, the Fredrick Winslow Taylor green was invented? What was Taylor trying to accomplish?

What do you think they were ALL trying to accomplish? What is the single most important thing they were trying to accomplish?

Tell me.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thanks Paul, this is from a distance but you can just see them.  Today that bank to the right of the green is covered in heather and very difficult to play out of.  The bunker on the left has now got more of a grass face and would have been more difficut to play out of if you were under the lip.  In the first one the staight edge at the top does look harsh.


So no one else thinks subsidence (ie chance) adds interest and charm?

[Mike_Trenham]

If USGA greens drain so well why don't modern architects build puchbowl greens?  Is it not easy with USGA specs?  The few true punchbowls I have played are real fun to play.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Guys, and particularly Pat:

Why do you think USGA spec greens were invented? What to you think they were primarily trying to accomplish? Why do you think the precusor to the USGA spec green, the Fredrick Winslow Taylor green was invented? What was Taylor trying to accomplish?

What do you think they were ALL trying to accomplish? What is the single most important thing they were trying to accomplish?

Tell me.

Perc rates.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

If USGA greens drain so well why don't modern architects build puchbowl greens?  Is it not easy with USGA specs?  The few true punchbowls I have played are real fun to play.


That's a good question.

As to the issue of hole locations, don't contours serve as a defensive mechanism ?

Placing the hole near a contour that would need to be traversed should the approach shot be errant seems like perfect risk-reward or strategic golf.

Hole locations AREN'T lost vis a vis contours, they are created.

Any moron, even that idiot-savant TEPaul, can create a flat green.  It's the creative use of contours that protect hole locations, that place a premium on thinking and accuracy, and a penalty for failure to think or execute, or in TEPaul' case, both.

Contouring is an asset, not a liability.[/color]

[peter_p]

What is a "USGA specification" green?
As traffic increased on the golf courses, putting greens began to show an inability to handle this wear and compaction that inhibited drainage. In the 1940s, the United States Golf Association (USGA) began studying "good" and "bad" greens. In 1960, the USGA Green Section introduced a green construction that introduced sand as the principal component of root zone mix to provide adequate drainage and resistance to compaction. The USGA green also incorporated a perched water table to provide a reservoir of moisture for use by turf. It was found that this construction principle provided good results for courses in most regions of the United States and the world. A cross section of this construction would show stratified layers of soil, sand, gravel and organic matter. The base of the green includes a network of pipes to facilitate drainage. The USGA and GCSAA has continued to study green construction as new methods of maintenance have been introduced and mowing heights have gone down even more.

That is from the USGA website. There isn't any mention of creating a challenge on putting surfaces. Just think, half your shots are diminished by their decision.

[TEPaul]

"Placing the hole near a contour that would need to be traversed should the approach shot be errant seems like perfect risk-reward or strategic golf."

Patrick:

Duh! Why do you think I invented the term "greens within a green" about four years ago? Obviously the "greens within a green" (separate sections hard to transition putts to and demanding of thought and accuracy to approach) are highly strategic. We had this discussion on a few threads a couple of years ago----I guess it just sunk in with you, huh?

[Mark_Fine]

In my mind there is no question they have had a significant impact.  Once that subsurface cavity is finished, the architect has limited ability to refine and/or be creative later on.  

[Kyle Harris]

Seems to me that a new method on the design and integration end needs to be created in order to deal with the construction requirements of a USGA green.

The perched water table concept is nothing new either. Willie Park, Jr. was noted for using pond sludge and cinders in order to create a similar affect in his greens. From the greens of his that I have seen, they are not lacking in the interesting contour category.

The greens at Talamore at Oak Terrace are USGA spec with some wild (overdesigned and over the top) movement in them. However, I think this was indicative of form fitting a paper plan to the site, as these greens are not integrated well at all.