[Mike_Cirba]

I have yet to see any positive good coming from replacing a push-up green with a USGA green as far as playability and conditioning, that wasn't coupled with mitigating variables such as new irrigation, tree removal, or past neglect.

No, scratch that.  I've yet to see an improvement in any case I'm familiar with.

I have seen just the opposite, with the new green seeming to be sometimes very thin with a shallow root system requiring a heckuva lot of watering, and is often much flatter and much less interesting (especially in terms of "micro rolls") than the one it replaced.

Perhaps someone can name some courses where they've seen this lead to improved playability and conditioning?

[Joel_Stewart]

Mike:

I wrote a post about 2 months ago on the pro and cons of USGA spec greens and received many posts.  You may want to look for that.  

In a nutshell, I'm not sure there is an advantage especially at 3x the cost.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike:

I wrote a post about 2 months ago on the pro and cons of USGA spec greens and received many posts.  You may want to look for that.  

In a nutshell, I'm not sure there is an advantage especially at 3x the cost.

Joel,

Thanks for pointing that out...sorry I missed it.

I'll have a search-see.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike,

Along the same lines as the post I just made in the "Oakmont greens" thread, places like Oakmont and Royal Melbourne for example, seem to prove it's more so about hearty grasses developing over time (survival and adaptation) and a course superintendent who learns to understand the situation and manage it properly than green construction and grass type.

Rebuilding old push-up greens these days seems to be most often connected to unrealistic expectations of golfers (private club members in most cases), and perhaps course superintendents who may believe their job COULD be made easier through USGA green construction and a monoculture of the new-fangled bent grass on the putting surfaces.

I agree. So often, too, I've seen this operation turn disasterous.

[Joel_Stewart]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=29365;start=msg567457#msg567457

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

the popularity of USGA greens is IMHO mainly due to various people protecting themselves against being sued. It is clear that plants can adapt to a change in environment but if the change is too great then the plant will always struggle. When you add to this the fact the plant will already be very stressed by being mown closely and that  USGA spec even with additives is still a sterile environment you have a receipe for problems with a big P.

It is important that the rootzone meets certain percolation spec and particle size and shapes. It is also important that the grasses used are okay for the whole of the playing season.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Can someone please explain to this undereducated moron what the definition of a "push-up" green is? Is it the same as a raised green?

[Jon Wiggett]

Tommy,

my understanding of a push up green is it is a green that is built using the soil on site often mixed with sand to improve the top surface firmness/drainage. In the old days (and still often) material was taken from the surrounding area and used to raise the level of the green to help improve its draining quality.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

the popularity of USGA greens is IMHO mainly due to various people protecting themselves against being sued. It is clear that plants can adapt to a change in environment but if the change is too great then the plant will always struggle. When you add to this the fact the plant will already be very stressed by being mown closely and that  USGA spec even with additives is still a sterile environment you have a receipe for problems with a big P.

It is important that the rootzone meets certain percolation spec and particle size and shapes. It is also important that the grasses used are okay for the whole of the playing season.

Jon,

I'd agree with you on NEW greens, but, why destroy an old green and replace it with a USGA spec green if it was performing adequately ?

Mike Cirba,

I think the issue you raise, had it's genesis in Tom Doak's post, and is clearly an indication of the power of advertising and/or the power of perception rather than reality, or a combination of both.
[/color]

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

It's not just "the power of advertising".  Over the years I've read at least a dozen USGA Green Section reports where the agronomist recommends rebuilding old greens to USGA specs.  You'd think they got a commission on them or something [even though they don't].

I've questioned this approach at every club we've been involved in, but to little avail.  Superintendents push it as a great idea because they like the idea of "consistency" -- though those 18 identical greens still sit in their own little micro-climates and don't react the same to identical water use.  I have even warned superintendents that I've never seen a head greenkeeper last more than two years at a club after he rebuilt the greens to USGA specs -- the members expect perfect conditions for their $$$ and it takes a while to get there on sterile soils.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

I'd agree with you on NEW greens, but, why destroy an old green and replace it with a USGA spec green if it was performing adequately ?

Patrick,

rebuilding greens often takes place on false arguments and assumptions. Many of the decision made at club level are made by people with to little understanding of the problems. They rely on what the experts say and often have unrealistic expectations.

Greenkeepers often blame poor preformance on the build rather than the maintenance program as it is easier. They often argue for rebuilding greens because they feel with a 'modern' build they can just follow a set program and all will be well. If the problem is not the construction then it will remain efter the build and so often leads to the greenkeeper being given the push after a season or so.

Also there is a strange belief amongst many that USGA greens will somehow produce equally good putting surfaces summer and winter where as they are more likely to produce equally bad ones.

[Scott Witter]

I agree with the premise of switching and not getting the expected results and I have witnessed three supers lose their jobs for the same reasons Tom notes.  Consider this...the builders and architects will say that constructing push up greens from native on-site sand based soils is best if performance criteria can be obtained.  I would agree and would do the same when ever possible.  However, the majority of sites have soils that are much less than ideal and the challenge stands.

Can some of those same individuals explain to the gallery how push up greens can be successfully built on heavy clay, or siltly clay/loam soils.  These soils compact and FAST unlike sand based soils, (they can too if you have fine angular aggregate) so building them must be take into consideration to tread lightly so as not to destroy their internal drainage properties.

Years ago, those push up greens we admire were NOT built with large heavy equipment, thus their basic structure was not impaired.  We also MUST remember that those same greens have been 'doctored' for years and years to significantly enhance their performance, so things are NOT just as they might appear.  Most are not the original 'push up' surfaces at least from the physical perspective.

[TEPaul]

Let me ask the agronomists and supers something that may be a stupid question but I ask it because of something I think I remember while passing through Royal County Down in 2001.

There was an issue then about redesigning the 16th hole by moving the green quite far to the left. In doing that a significant member said the original green had to be sacrificed because they needed its turf on the new green to match the rest of the course.

I suggested they just leave the original green, build a new one to the left and have a hole with two greens. On the new green I suggested they just try to match the grass to what was on the rest of the course.

So the question is---can you effectively take old turf off an old green, lay it aside temporarily, redo and/or reshape the green's slopes and contours and then lay the old turf back on it?

Since the profile must be fairly malleable or flexible I'd think it would adjust to the new slopes and contours but would it struggle to survive for other reasons---agronomic reasons because it's in something of a new structural/agronomic environment?

[Tom_Doak]

Scott:

I agree completely with your last paragraph.

I'm sure I've never said that sand-based greens are the wrong solution in every case, although some may have inferred that from my knock on relying on USGA greens as the only method.  If so, I am sorry for that.  We do build USGA or California-system greens on projects with bad soils, including (most recently) The Rawls Course, Tumble Creek, Stone Eagle, and Rock Creek.

Tom P:

I have several answers to your question but I will wait to hear from the agronomists first.

[Jeff_Brauer]

We had an Oakmont thread last year where Forrest Richardson pretty well destroyed the notion that their push up greens were still that.

I agree with Scott Witter and most of the following probably will just parrot his post.  In most cases, I favor the USGA (or California) method but am looking at a push up remodel right now that won't have those.  Both are based on scientific research and basically, they fight compaction that kills grass.  Irrigation and Fertilizers can be added, but compaction is hard to take away. The USGA continues to refine its spec, and is currently getting away from the perfectly sterile sand soils, realizing those problems are real, as well.  

There may be no perfect green building solution, and it is site specific, but its hard to argue against some kind of and based green whether native or imported.  Architects and supers have been extolling the virtues of sand based golf courses forever, for good reason!

Mike,

To more specifically answer your question, I agree that soil is just one factor and irrigation and air movement must also be good.  It sounds like you are judging the new greens pretty quickly. It may just be that the course is facing financial pressure to open a few weeks too soon.  

And, I have seen superintendents struggle with the widely different maintenance regimen required when switching from soil to sand greens. I encourage them to spend a lot of time with other supers if they have never maintained pure sand greens.  But, eventually they get there and most do prefer the sand based growing medium for reasons stated above.

[Scott Witter]

Tom D.:

No apologies needed...not to me at least those inferring are insecure anyway

Tom P.:

I have done this and done so well on greens and tees, but the basic structure of the 'green' will most likely eventually fail if the methods of construction destroy the internal drainage properties.  The sod will take probably just fine assuming at least similar soils are used, but may fail in a few short years if root growth can't penetrate as needed to obtain water and nutrients.  Otherwise, which so often happens, they become stunted, remaining close to the surface relying on surface feeding and succum to cultural pressure, diseases, etc.

I would still like to hear from some of the supers out their too re Tom's question...Mr. Hancock what say you??

[TEPaul]

"Tom P.:
I have done this and done so well on greens and tees, but the basic structure of the 'green' will most likely eventually fail if the methods of construction destroy the internal drainage properties.  The sod will take probably just fine assuming at least similar soils are used, but may fail in a few short years if root growth can't penetrate as needed to obtain water and nutrients.  Otherwise, which so often happens, they become stunted, remaining close to the surface relying on surface feeding and succum to cultural pressure, diseases, etc."

Scott:

So, it seems like you're suggesting that so long as the internal drainage characteristics somehow match the old green that this taking off, laying aside and replacing old sod on a reshaped green could work well.

[archie_struthers]

 


Mike

in 1999 we restored the old second hole at Greate Bay , in Somers Point , NJ  ( Park 1923. with some renovations )

In doing this we had to rip up a hole that Ron Garl had built for previous owners in the mid 1980's. Garl's renovation changed the starting par to

#1   par four (410)

#2 par 3  (185)

#3 par 4   (365)

#4 par 3   (125)

it really didn't work too well, with delays early in the round and Garl's renovation had replaced a really good tough four par with two average (at best ) short holes...in ripping up his 2nd hole I was concerned as to Mike C's question.. that the new green we now had to build would not react / putt like the other 17 existing holes.  

We had enough room to flip the tee on the short # 2 and make it the 16th hole, which fits rather neatly into the routing, and in the process improved the course by restoring one of Park's original holes ... which is now our second hole and one of the better holes in the area.

Our course now starts par four , par four , par three and pace of play is much improved, an added bonus.


Back to the new green on now #16 and how it relates to your question.

  We striipped the sod off the green...stored it in a hothouse for two days and returfed the new #16 green with it.. in December no less.. and had it fully operational by June 15th . After building it more or less to USGA specs.it requires slightly different care, as expected, but I would defy anyone who didn't know that we did this to identify it as different from our other greens today.

In our case we got lucky, and established a green that plays , looks , and feels like the 1923 push up originals!

So , for my money, it's the turf, not the construction method that changes everything.  Our experiences, a new green that most closely resembles the original ones,  is an interesting success story.  

[archie_struthers]

TEP

Merry Christmas,  in reading Mike's question I somehow skimmed over your query...

We actually stripped the sod and then recovered a totally new greensite with same... funny how well it worked

I must confess I called in some favors on this one... Dick Bator ..Pat Gertner and a couple more of my PVGC buddies came down to spend a week and help out.. Pretty good huh?

We fought the whole time ..but had so mcuh fun... Bator and I particularly had some nice discussions during the process..  as to the efficacy of my idea.... but he helped... and it worked!

perhaps someday you can visit with Mike C and we can look at the job

cheers

[Mike_Cirba]

Archie,

I still need to get down there and see what you guys have done.  

Thanks for everyone's detailed info so far.  

[Jerry Kluger]

I have two questions:

1.  I believe we saw evidence of a drainage system that they put in the greens at Oakmont some time prior to the Open - does that allow for some of the professed benefits of USGA greens without rebuilding them?

2. Congressional rebuilt their greens back in the 1990s and they've had problems with them ever since and they are now going to rebuild them again before the US Open which I believe they will host in 2010 - what type of greens did build in the 1990s and do you know what type they plan on building?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Merry Christmas,  in reading Mike's question I somehow skimmed over your query..."


Archie:

Don't worry about it and Merry Christmas to you too.

Most people on here when they just see my name on some post tend to skim over it. Do you blame them with how much I write on here and the length of some of my posts?  

[TEPaul]

On the other hand, Archie, I'm a total rationalizer and I tend to never blame myself and the length of my posts and the amount I write on here for the fact that so many tend to skim over my posts.

I always blame it on the participants on here and the fact that most all of them suffer from the dreaded new age phenomenon of impatience and the desire for instant gratification!  

If you could've seen those "Field" magazines Bob Crosby and I were reading the other day in New York and the size and volume of that weekly content you'd really know what I mean.

Apparently back then people simply did not mind spending a ton of time reading as some of the things they read were ultra long and complex in both writing and reasoning. To them it was probably something of an intellectual sport and pastime, and they liked spending a ton of time both doing it and thinking about it and talking about it.

Probably not much different from another historic fact---and that is that when politicians spoke in the old days, or debated, their audiences expected them to do it for a few hours at least and if they shortened that up too much audiences tended to feel cheated and short-changed!  

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, at the time he gave it, was just as significant for its remarkable brevity as it was for what he actually said!  

[Craig Disher]

Tom,
I read your posts faithfully and as of last night I'm up to 24,362. I think I'll be up to date by New Years.  

One feature of older native soil greens is that they were designed with efficient surface drainage in mind - at least that view is repeated in articles and books from the 20s and 30s. Has the use of USGA-spec greens taken away that emphasis to any significant degree?

I don't know of any green rebuilds around here that have not employed USGA specs and the common problem I've seen is poor turf around the green edges. It's explained away by "we need some time to let the grow-in complete" but I wonder if it's because of the difference in soil between the green surface and the surrounds coupled with poor surface drainage.

[TEPaul]

Craig:

Then that means there are almost 4,000 of my posts that you have not yet read. If that's so I'm really hurt!

From what I've seen watching a few architects work on green building in the field I certainly would not say they have gotten away from considering and constructing efficient surface drainage (sheet drainage) including greens even if internal and subsurface drainage has obviously improved dramatically from the old days.

I'd think the sophistication of the grasses today would almost demand they not get away from this.

Don't forget, in the old days golf grass was a lot more natural and consequently probably hardy in the way it existed and survived on golf courses going all the way back to that time when they didn't even want surface of sheet drainage---eg when greens were commonly placed in bowls and natural bowls simply to preserve longer existing rain water subsurface. Obviously this was a time that preceded man-made irrigation methods.

On the other hand, through the middle years when man-made irrigation became possible it was probably not uncommon for some courses to be completely soaked on a regular basis.

I was told by a former super at GCGC that one of his predecessors reguarly put 50 million gallon of water per year on that golf course. I don't think anyone would dream of doing that today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()