Will push up greens make a comeback ?

[John Moore II]

Having not really read the other replies and to only answer the main question, I see no reason that push-up greens should not be used in certain cases. It all depends on the soil on the site. If the soil is sandy, then there is no need to build 'spec' greens, just mix a bit of stuff into the normal soil and spread some seed, sod or whatever you want to use to get the grass to grow. Now, if you are building a course in the mountains or somewhere that has very hard, poor draining clay, then push-up greens may not work, even with some sand mixture added in.

But given a good site, there is nothing to prevent push-up greens from being used.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ian Larson,

Don't view the question in the sole context of agronomics.

View it in the context of architecture, the ability to introduce pronounced internal contouring and the ease of redesign, which could be a double edged sword.

Patrick, I think you MUST view it with the sole context of agronomics. Reality is there are no design reasons to be against, all minuses are really in the growing grass bit, if that makes sense.

[Ian Larson]

I completely understand where your coming from Pat. There is such a convenience and cost savings in using a push-up and being able to come back in and recontour it without having to really deal with the engineering aspect of a USGA system.

I honestly really wish I would be fortunate enough to get a position at a club where they have push-ups on a sandy site. The first one that comes to mind is Shinnecock annnnd I think NGLA is still the native pushup, am I right on that?

For the most part I would see no reason for a club out on Long Island or southern New Jersey Pine Barrons not using the native sandy soil.


The USGA system is a completely controlled enviornment and was engineered for that specific purpose. The controlled soil enviornment gave supers a piece of mind and a new sense of consistency when it came to their greens management. The sand particle size is spec'ed out to retain only enough water for plant uptake in the micropores and good drainage for plant unavailable water moving through the macropores, along with the percentage of peat moss in the mix for nutrient retention

Its a win-win situation. I could show you soil testing results from a USGA green and a push-up green, it would be hard to tell which is which nutrient-wise. The big difference is in the physical analysis characteristics with a USGA green generally draining faster and less bulk density (compaction).


Site and situation dependent, push-up is always an option. The safe bet is usually always USGA or USGA modified version.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I think you are right as to the ability to develop a green with contour much easier as a push-up vs, the USGA green. 
Because of the fact that you cannot change the contour once the gravel layer is established and pften it is changed thus not being a "USGA" green......
As long as one has positive surface drainage on a push-up.....I would rather spend my $$$$ on a good supt....and give him a good push up green made from a good rootzone mix with a little drainage underneath.....all this other Phosphorous and Nitrogen stuff will be taken care of without it ever being mentioned......

[John Moore II]

Here is another thought. After several years of topdressing 2 or 3 times a year, doesn't the composition of the USGA Spec green change substantially? And if that is the case, doesn't that make for an excellent arguement in favor of push-up greens whenever possible?

Certainly the subsurface drainage doesn't change with the topdressing, but the moisture retention properties and how fast the water moves through the top layer would change with topdressing assuming the course did not use the exact same type sand, correct?

[Kyle Harris]

Here is another thought. After several years of topdressing 2 or 3 times a year, doesn't the composition of the USGA Spec green change substantially? And if that is the case, doesn't that make for an excellent arguement in favor of push-up greens whenever possible?

Certainly the subsurface drainage doesn't change with the topdressing, but the moisture retention properties and how fast the water moves through the top layer would change with topdressing assuming the course did not use the exact same type sand, correct?

Depends on the composition of the topdressing. The advantage of the USGA Green is one can topdress with the same material as that which with the green was constructed.

[Ian Larson]

Here is another thought. After several years of topdressing 2 or 3 times a year, doesn't the composition of the USGA Spec green change substantially? And if that is the case, doesn't that make for an excellent arguement in favor of push-up greens whenever possible?

Certainly the subsurface drainage doesn't change with the topdressing, but the moisture retention properties and how fast the water moves through the top layer would change with topdressing assuming the course did not use the exact same type sand, correct?

Not really believe it or not. With a few years of topdressing the sand is only diluting the OM. Its not really changing the composition "substantially". But then again it depends on how aggressive the super is able to be with topdressing. just from what Ive seen, you would have to put down visible and significant application (enough that would need brushed in) of sand at least once a month to see a dramatic change in the upper profile. The way the profile is changed dramatically is with an aggressive aerification program and back filling the holes with sand.


To relate that to a soil push-up green....

This is kinda what Scott Anderson was saying in his talk at Tom Paul's barn. He has soil (I suppose, correct me if Im wrong) push-up greens at HVCC. He doesnt topdress with straight sand, he uses a "bio-blend / bio-mix?". If he were to aggressively topdress his greens with straight sand over the couple decades hes been there, by now he would have made a dramatic change in the upper profile in the soil greens.

The reason he hasnt is to avoid creating that well-draining / sandy upper profile layer. Having that small layer that drains well on top of soil that doesnt drain well creates perched water table within the profile. He wasnt condoning sand topdressing, he was just saying he doesnt use it at HVCC because of the soil greens.

Again, anyone correct me if Im wrong, but I would imagine Scott utilizes deep-needletine aerification in combination with regular hollow core aerification and try to get the holes filled with sand. Hollow coring and sand backfilling creates a consistent base of sand filled channels for the water percolation and gas exchange. The deep tines take tha even farther down into the soil profile. This also avoids any small layering up top
and a perched water table.

Soooo, hollow coring and sand filling is what all the old clubs have been doing for decades and thats why they perform so well now. The profile has been cored and sand filled so many times over the years that if they had a physical analysis of the profile done, the analysis wouldnt be too far off from a USGA green.

And thats why I say soil greens are always being worked to achieve what a USGA spec green was designed to already have in place.


Anyone correct me if anything is inaccurate about HVCC, thats what I took from Scotts talk. But what Ive said is pretty muck what has been done at Ridgewood and other soil green clubs.

[John Moore II]

Here is another thought. After several years of topdressing 2 or 3 times a year, doesn't the composition of the USGA Spec green change substantially? And if that is the case, doesn't that make for an excellent arguement in favor of push-up greens whenever possible?

Certainly the subsurface drainage doesn't change with the topdressing, but the moisture retention properties and how fast the water moves through the top layer would change with topdressing assuming the course did not use the exact same type sand, correct?

Not really believe it or not. With a few years of topdressing the sand is only diluting the OM. Its not really changing the composition "substantially". But then again it depends on how aggressive the super is able to be with topdressing. just from what Ive seen, you would have to put down visible and significant application (enough that would need brushed in) of sand at least once a month to see a dramatic change in the upper profile. The way the profile is changed dramatically is with an aggressive aerification program and back filling the holes with sand.

Sorry for not being clear. I was not talking about basic topdressing in the absence of aerification. I was talking about changing the composition with full tine aerification and sanding 2 or 3 times a year. In that situation, with the sand going down 3-4 inches, the composition is changed, yes?

[Ian Larson]

I think I got you John,

I wasnt talking about topdressing in the absence of aerification either. Im assuming youre still talking about a soil push-up green...

The first thing would be that if you have a soil push-up green, IMO and contrary to Scott at HVCC, I would lightly dust the greens every other week with straight sand or a 85% / 15% greens mix. Lightly dusting isnt enough to create a layer but it is enough to maintain some smoothness
in the green. Its also important to topdress light and frequent because that is the key to matching the rate of organic matter accumulation. And that is what alot of supers dont think about, is actually matching that rate of accumulation. If you dont match it week by week, thats how spongy / thatchy greens occur.

To specifically answer your question. To have a soil push-up and only topdress 2 - 3 times a year is...

1. Not matching the rate of organic matter accumulation which can average 13 - 16% annually.

2. 2 -3 times a year will not change the top 3 -4 inches. To change a soil push-ups top 3 -4 inches from pretty much soil to pretty much sand a super would have to absolutely bury his greens with sand at least once a month for at least a year, but probably at least 2 years. And doing that is the absolute worst thing the super could do, you definetely dont want to have 3-4 inches of sand over a native / heavy soil. You do however, want to have that percentage of sand but with it diluted into the soil. And thats done by backfilling the aerification holes with sand and a light and frequent topdressing program.

3. And for a super to absolutely bury the greens once a month or 2 -3 times a year IMO isnt a very efficient topdressing program and its not fair to the members and clientele to be putting on a beach for 2 - 3 weeks until it works itself in. Even when I aerify I try to have the greens back to completely normal and back down to normal mowing height within a week.


If a super were to start from scratch with a soil push-up green it would take years with a regimented program that he stuck to, to dramatically change that soil profile into a profile with a considerable amount of sand.

And thats why push-ups that are sand based and USGA greens have the advantage over a heavy soil push-up.




ps  I just reread you question and I think I really get what youre saying. Aerifying down to 3 or 4 inches and backfilling with straight sand will eventually change that profile, but thats long term. As in years. The immediate effects are increased water infiltration through the channels and gas exchang between O2 and CO2. One year of topdressing 2 -3 times heavily and backfilling aerification holes will not DRAMATICALLY change the profile. It takes time.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here is another thought. After several years of topdressing 2 or 3 times a year, doesn't the composition of the USGA Spec green change substantially? And if that is the case, doesn't that make for an excellent arguement in favor of push-up greens whenever possible?

Certainly the subsurface drainage doesn't change with the topdressing, but the moisture retention properties and how fast the water moves through the top layer would change with topdressing assuming the course did not use the exact same type sand, correct?

JKM,

On a project I was involved with, when USGA green specs called for a choker layer of sand, I raised the issue of having the exact same sand IN the surrounding bunkers, and as a top dressing ingredient.

My thoughts were that the sand would eventually find its way down to the choker level and preserve the consistency of the Choker layer.

My focus on creating this thread was on the architectural rather than the agronomic side.

Recontouring a USGA spec'd green is almost impossible, and certainly very expensive.

In addition, introducing substantive contour is very, very difficult with USGA greens because every level/layer must be similarly contoured, and, with field workers being paid minimum or lower wage levels, it's difficult to achieve perfection or sometimes reasonable continuity in their construction.

Push-up greens offer no such impediments, at origin or reconfiguration.

[Ian Larson]

JKM,

On a project I was involved with, when USGA green specs called for a choker layer of sand, I raised the issue of having the exact same sand IN the surrounding bunkers, and as a top dressing ingredient.

'My thoughts were that the sand would eventually find its way down to the choker level and preserve the consistency of the Choker layer.

My focus on creating this thread was on the architectural rather than the agronomic side.

Recontouring a USGA spec'd green is almost impossible, and certainly very expensive.

In addition, introducing substantive contour is very, very difficult with USGA greens because every level/layer must be similarly contoured, and, with field workers being paid minimum or lower wage levels, it's difficult to achieve perfection or sometimes reasonable continuity in their construction.

Push-up greens offer no such impediments, at origin or reconfiguration."



Patrick,

1. The answer to the question on the architectural side is simply, no. Unless its a sandy site.

2. USGA spec greens no longer use a choker layer, they havent for years.

3. Recontouring is not impossible if the money is put up for it.

4. Substantive contour on a USGA green is not impossible. Its very very very easy. 2 words, Dove Mountain.

5. "Field workers"? Do you know anything about the construction business. Greens are being built by reasonably paid, talented contractors.
        Thats a very insulting statement sounding very similar to John Kavanaugh.

6. If you suggested using the same sand in the bunkers as in the "choker layer" that probably wasnt even in the greens, you should have
        kicked off the committee and do some research on sand particle size analysis and the playability of different sands. Do you even know
        what a choker layer is why it was used?

7. Where is there a situation where youve seen the need where a club wanted to recontour the greens so severely?

8. Youre thread is maybe 5 to 10% architecture and 90 to 95% agronomics

[Cory Brown]

http://www.usga.org/turf/articles/construction/general/building_maintenance.html

Here is a link to an interesting article on cost effective construction techniques.  It is from the USGA so if you are opposed to USGA greens because they are USGA greens this may not help.  But it is some interesting information anyway.

[John Moore II]

Ian-I was actually referring to aerification/topdressing on USGA spec greens and how the different sand would change the composition of those greens. I am aware that the composition wouldn't change substantially after the first application of sand, but greens are built to last a minimum of 10-15 years with many lasting much longer. I would think after 5 years of aerification and topdressing 3 times per year the soil/sand composition would have changed a fair amount?

I also agree with you in dealing with Pat that this is a mostly agronomic issue and that push-up greens will only work if the soil profile is mostly sandy. Push-up greens won't work on a thick clay base just because water, air, etc. can't move around well enough for the grass to survive. Just don't count on ever being able to convince Pat of anything like that. That man would argue with a telephone pole and slap the pole because it dared not argue back. 

[Jon Wiggett]

Kyle,

situations where a push up green is the best option is any course with out an irrigation system (with enough rainfall), areas only allowed to use low levels of nutrient input, if your not allowed to use any Phosphor, where the native soil is freen draining.

I hope this answers your question and I look forward to your reply

Let me start by saying that I like both and have worked on both. My first being Ridgewood Country Club. But I dont understand when someone takes the stance that push-ups are superior. Both have positives and negatives. But it is the push ups that can have more negatives, unless the native soil is of a SIGNIFIGANT SAND PERCENTAGE. If I had a site with sandy soil I would say hell yes, lets push them up and save thousands of dollars.


Lets go back to Pats initial post. Will they make a comeback? If a new course is being built in his town of Philadelphia, NO. If a new course was being built down the road in the Pine Barrens and coastal New Jersey, YES. Theres not a developer or agronomist out there that would look at a properties heavy soil, lets say around Philadelphia or New York, and recommend using that soil for a push up green. Will it work, YES. But will the entire mission after that be to ammend it with sand to increase percolation rates, YES.


And that is why push-up greens are always trying to become USGA greens....

....a pushup green that does not have a considerable amount of sand is going to spend the rest of its existence being ammended with sand to increase water percolation rates. A USGA is designed to already be where the push-up is taking decades to get to.


Read that again......."A USGA is designed to already be where the push-up is taking decades to get to."

Thats why you have a guy like Patrick wondering if the push-up will make a comeback, because his 82 year old push-ups are working magnificently. And I know hes right with that, all of the soil push-ups in the old east coast courses built back in the turn of the century ARE working magnificently. And I envy the clubs who have the good fortune of having them. But its because they have been ammended for decades. I would not want to be a super at a new course in the New York / Philadelphia / Washington areas with native soil push-ups that have the low end of sand percentage. It would be a nightmare in the hot and humid summers and dealing with soggy greens after rains. I wouldnt take the job based purely on that. Todays expectations are different than the turn of the centuries. Owners want a new course to up to working condition a year after they are built. I can assure you that wasnt the case at the turn of the century.




To reply to Jon Wiggets points.....



"An interesting quote, where did you dig it up?Huh. Indeed, what are USGA greens designed to do?"

           That would be from yours truly. When you get down to the nuts and bolts of soil science thats a very true statement, unless the
           push-up is sand based native soil.



"Firstly Ian, I never said ‘SOIL push up greens’ and I did notice your quote excludes sand based push ups. So you tell me when is a push up green a soil based or sand based one???"

           Push-ups can be done anywhere. On sites where soil is ideal and sites where soil is not ideal. The spirit of a push-up is to literally
           "PUSH-UP" the surrounding native soil. If you have a site with a clay soil and import a sandier soil I wouldnt say you have push-up
           green. So to try and answer your question, yes you never said SOIL push-up greens, but "PUSH-UP" is a universal term. Not intended
           solely for sandy soil, it also includes heavier soils. Like you would find in Patrick's neck of the woods.



"Also is not the inclusion of organic matter in most USGA green mixes actually an atempt to take the mix towards what a push up green (soil or sand based) already is?"

           Yes you are absolutely right. Just like the push-up is incorporating sand to become what the USGA is. The biggest difference, read this
           carefully, is that the USGA incorporates the peat moss organic only once in it lifetime. At the mixing plant. After that there is no need
           to continually keep adding organic.


"I am commenting form the point of a sustainable type grow in and maintenance. I do not believe that the USGA build is the one size fits all solution that many of its supporters try to push. It has big issues with lack of nutrient storage and also major problems as far as water is concerned."

           I hate to say this but the USGA green is very adaptable to any climate to any circumstance, therefore it can be considered a one size
           fits all solution. Now before you start attacking me on that statement, it all comes down to whether or not you have access to a good
           native or local soil. If you do and its economical to use or import, your best option is to use that. But if you dont, the USGA will
           ALWAYS work. In any situation. Thats why ALOT of developers just use it. Because theres less risk for the reward.


           As far as nutrient storage you are way off and should probably refer back to the Turf 101 book and read up on the CEC chapter.
           For those who dont know what CEC is its the CATION EXCHANGE CAPACITY. This is the measurement of the number of exchange sites
           on a single soil colloid. The colloid is what nutrients will naturally cling to. Soil naturally has a higher CEC than sand. But that is why
           USGA greens are mixed with a percentage of peat moss or organic. Peat moss has a very high CEC. So the greens mix is designed
           to hold nutrients just as well as a soil green. Now if you are talking about straight sand, of course soil is better. If straight sand is
           used it will spend the rest of its existence incorporating organic into its profile.


"A push up will grow in better than a USGA with out an irrigation system."

           Maybe in your neck of the woods where rainfall is not a problem. But in alot of parts in the world rainfall is not consistent. And it
           matter what your growing medium is my friend, no water no grow. Especially in the grow-in stage. And who is building a golf course
           without an irrigation system these days?


"A push up will grow in better than a USGA if you are only allowed to use 10g/N m2 for the first 2 seasons followed by 6g there after.."

            This is a generalized blanket statement. There are plenty of deficient soil sites and types out there. Just because its a push-up
            doesnt mean the nutrient input goes down to zero.

            I can tell you right now that Winged Foot, Merion, Oakmont and Ridgewood spray their greens once a week and apply .10 lb of N
            per 1000 square feet. They have native soil push-ups. Are you going to criticize those supers for not maintaining those greens
            correctly or excessively? I sure as hell wouldnt!!!


"A push up will grow in better than a USGA if your not allowed to use any Phosphor"

             I agree with you


"A push up will preform better than a USGA if your not allowed to use fungicides.'

             I disagree with this. I think they both are susceptible to disease equally. But I think the USGA will have a hand up with being able
             to be kept drier. If your growing in or just maintaining, during a rainy season, I would much rather have a high sand based green.
             I know the push-up could be sand based, if it is then great. But if I had a heavy soil push-up, the water that is SLOOOWWLLYY
             moving through the profile is just incubating all the pathogens waiting in the thatch and profile.
             moisture + warmth + pathogen = disease incubation


Ill leave it with that for now. My girlfriend wants me off GCA on a lovely SoCal afternoon.

Hi Ian,

your answers take what I wrote so out of context that I can only conclude you have read my post incorrectly. Please reread and redefine your response. For clarification an important part that you seem to have missed is:

 I am commenting from the point of a sustainable type grow in and maintenance.

Don't forget Ian, to be a USGA green it has to have been certified by an approved lab. Everything else is in essence a push up.

Hoping for a more relevant response,

cheers,

Jon

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

On a project I was involved with, when USGA green specs called for a choker layer of sand, I raised the issue of having the exact same sand IN the surrounding bunkers, and as a top dressing ingredient.

'My thoughts were that the sand would eventually find its way down to the choker level and preserve the consistency of the Choker layer.

My focus on creating this thread was on the architectural rather than the agronomic side.

Recontouring a USGA spec'd green is almost impossible, and certainly very expensive.

In addition, introducing substantive contour is very, very difficult with USGA greens because every level/layer must be similarly contoured, and, with field workers being paid minimum or lower wage levels, it's difficult to achieve perfection or sometimes reasonable continuity in their construction.

Push-up greens offer no such impediments, at origin or reconfiguration."



Patrick,

1. The answer to the question on the architectural side is simply, no. Unless its a sandy site.

2. USGA spec greens no longer use a choker layer, they havent for years.

I've been aware of that for years and years, however at the time of construction the choker layer was part of the USGA spec.

3. Recontouring is not impossible if the money is put up for it.
Because the amount of money required is signficant, recontouring isn't possible from a practical point of view.  With an unlimited budget, almost anything can be accomplished

4. Substantive contour on a USGA green is not impossible. Its very very very easy. 2 words, Dove Mountain.
It's NOT very, very, very, very easy.  If it was, it would be the norm, not the exception.

5. "Field workers"? Do you know anything about the construction business. Greens are being built by reasonably paid, talented contractors.
Yes, I know "anything" about the construction business.
I know the difference between a GC, project manager, superintendent, foreman and field worker (especially as opposed to an office worker)

Thats a very insulting statement sounding very similar to John Kavanaugh.

No it's not, it's a factual statement.
If you know as much about construction crews as you claim and you understand the heirarchy involved in a project, then you know that my statement was accurate.  How would you compare the pay level of those workers to the foreman, superintendent or project manager ?
Are they their peers ?

6. If you suggested using the same sand in the bunkers as in the "choker layer" that probably wasnt even in the greens,

It WAS in the greens.
you should have kicked off the committee

It's hard to kick the chairman off the committee

and do some research on sand particle size analysis and the playability of different sands.

I did more than ample research on the sand, including particle size and the river rock layer, prefering marble shaped materials to popcorn shaped materials.  We spend additional sums to get the better grade of sand and river rock.

Do you even know what a choker layer is why it was used?

Yes.

7. Where is there a situation where youve seen the need where a club  wanted to recontour the greens so severely?

Why do you use the extreme term, "severely" ?
I prefer to use the term, "pronounced contour"

I know a number of Board members at clubs that, having been exposed to the greens at Adios, wanted to "redo" their greens to obtain significantly more contour.

I know of other clubs that wanted to expand their USGA greens beyond their current footpad, some of which were entirely constructed, but, the cost involved in doing so was too significant for them to move ahead with the project.

On the other hand, a club less than 5 miles away from me recently expanded about 6 of their greens with little in the way of cost.

8. Youre thread is maybe 5 to 10% architecture and 90 to 95% agronomics

That's only because some respondents have chosen that path.

[Ian Larson]

"Hi Ian,

your answers take what I wrote so out of context that I can only conclude you have read my post incorrectly. Please reread and redifine your response. For clarification an important part that you seem to have missed is:

 I am commenting form the point of a sustainable type grow in and maintenance.

Hoping for a more relevant response,

cheers,

Jon"



Jon,

First I would have to ask what your definition of sustainability is? Because a USGA, California or soil push-up green can all sustain a stand of grass very well. Greens all over the world have different needs as far as nutrient and water inputs because of different climates and weather patterns, which is not a bad thing and doesnt make one less sustainable than the other.

When you refer to the small demographic of greens in the world that do not have irrigation, sure a heavy soil green probably is best scenario in a region that gets consistently heavy annual rainfall. How do those greens drain though? Managing greens in a region with heavy annual rainfall would be even more reason for me to want to rebuild to USGA or use some sandy growing medium. Its one thing to not have to irrigate because of rainfall, actually thats great except its not controlled. But its another thing to not only have no control over irrigating, but to also not have control over the green draining. If I couldnt control irrigation because of consistent rainfall, I at least want control or have a piece of mind knowing that my greens soils are well draining. Alot of rainfall and poorly draining soils are a very bad combination.

Again as far as nutrients go, a USGA green is designed to retain nutrients just as well as soil using a signifigant percentage of peat added to the greens mix. The standard of measure for nutrient retention is the CEC. Sure there will be some situations out there where a soil green has a higher CEC but for the most part USGA CEC is always right there with native soil. Im looking at a soil report right now where the greens were tested along with fairways and tees. Fairways and tees are soil, greens are USGA. The CEC is all in the same ballfield.



If what you mean by sustainability is little to no inputs with nutrients and water, then I would have to say that it is more of a region, climate and weather pattern issue than it is what you are growing the grass on. The climate in the UK is much more mild with heavier annual rainfall throughout the year. I would say that plant stress is not always on top of the greenkeepers list of worries. But here in the US and many other regions across the world supers are always thinking about plant stress because of too much rainfall, no rainfall at all, alot of humidity, no humidity at all and excessive temperatures.

If I were in the UK and I had native soil push-ups with some sand in it, alot of rainfall and mild temperatures. USGA would never be on my radar.

[Kyle Harris]

CEC = Cation Exchange Capacity

CEC is a rating by which the ability of a soil to hold cations (positively charged ions) is indicated.

I had always gathered that a risk with soil greens was having too many "other" ions competing with the plant available ions. This is why managing the inorganic element of the soil (sand topdressing, for example) was key.

With a USGA Spec green, there is less variance in the management but it still exists. The idea with a soil pushup is to manage the inputs in such a way to be synergistic with what is already in the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ian,

How do you explain the exquisite function of 80 year old push up greens ?

How do you explain the numerous problems that have been experienced with some USGA spec greens ?

Something seems out of balance.

[Kyle Harris]

Ian,

How do you explain the exquisite function of 80 year old push up greens ?

How do you explain the numerous problems that have been experienced with some USGA spec greens ?

Something seems out of balance.

80 YEARS of amendments/management and turf evolution (of the Darwinian kind).

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

For Goodness Sakes, you need to get off this thread and stop interrupting and bothering these guys with your petty argumentations particularly over words. You're like some little six year old in short pants on here who's just escaped from his parents and somehow you've managed to wander into a graduate school lecture and distrupt the whole thing.

They've got plenty of middle schools in North Jersey and South Florida, and you need to sit in on something like an 8th grade class on Earth Science or the fundamentals of debate. That's pretty much your speed on these kinds of subjects!

 

Now, even though you started this thread you should politely refrain from it unless and until you're able to put on some intellectual "long pants" and get into an intelligent discussion with these guys.

Savy, Patrick? 

[Ian Larson]

Pat, Pat, Pat...


What can I say to that other than you are the classic example of a member that only knows enough to be a huge pain in the ass to everyone at your club?


I really dont have to spend the time writing another post showing where your wrong because the people reading your statements can figure that out themselves.

But for your sake....

1. Your statement about USGA greens being built because the people building them are lowly, poorly paid fieldworkers. How does that not
          sound like JK and how is that factual? You are a member at a club. You preside over committees at your club. That does not give you
          the experience or the right to make a statement like that. Its an ignorant stereotype a la JK. Please enlighten me and the readers how
          vast your experience is in the golf course construction field is. How many greens have you built? And please give me something
          better than "the greens at my club were rebuilt" or "I watched the construction crew work as I drove by on my golf cart".

          Ive been on the construction crew first as an intern for a year and a half in college. Raking and shoveling my ass off building greens,
          tees and bunkers. Ive spent entire days in muddy drainage ditches over my head laying pipe. Ive spent day after day after day with
          my ass planted firmly on the seat of a bulldozer or an excavator. Ive been a construction foreman for several projects around
          the metro NY area. My point is, Ive been that guy building the green who you say is a minimum wage and unmotivated fieldworker.
          I have alot of friends and colleagues all over the world in the construction business who build greens, very talented and make
          a great living doing what they love. But you have headed a couple committees at your club and have SEEN a construction crew or two.
          So I guess you do have the background and experience to say such things. All in all I have been involved with the construction
          of over 100 greens so far, as someone who has been in the trenches your statements are very offending and is just another reason
          why being a superintendent sucks because there are members like you to deal with.


2. I need you to be involved in the construction of at least 1 green before you try to prove to me that building a severely contoured green is
          hard. And by involved I mean actually working with it. Getting your hands dirty. Do I need to repeat myself when I say look at this
          past weekends greens at Dove Mountain. They are some of the most severe greens anyone has seen. They are USGA. The hardest
          part about building those greens was the actual imagination being used by Jack and his associates to come up with those shapes
          and tying them into the green surrounds. Building them to USGA spec did not make them any harder to construct. Was it more
          time consuming than just pushing some dirt around and calling it a day? Yeah. Is it more expensive than just pushing some dirt around
          and calling it a day? Yeah. But Dove Mountain now has high performance greens out of that investment. If they had just pushed some
          dirt around and planted some seed, those greens wouldnt have grown in as well as they have and they sure as hell wouldnt have had
          them PGA tournament ready within 1 YEAR!

          Severe contours on a USGA green like Dove Mountain are not the norm because of green speeds and low mowing heights. It has
          nothing to do with the fact that its a USGA spec. I thought you would even know that. Hell, I could make a USGA spec green shaped
          like an egyptian pyramid if I wanted to with ease. Wait..... that might be cool.  



Ive tried to answer your questions and comments a couple times I think now....


Will push-up greens make a comeback?  They never left! And if a sites soil is suitable, that soil is always an option.

Why do 80 year old push-ups work just as well as USGA?  God man!!! Because of 80 years of freaking topdressing with sand!!!!!




Patrick could you please elaborate on the numerous problems youve cited that are associated with USGA greens? And compare that to why
           there are not the same problems with an 80 year push-up?


  Did the USGA forget to send you your free US Open hat this year or something?

[Ian Larson]

"That man would argue with a telephone pole and slap the pole because it dared not argue back.  Grin Grin"


...brilliantly hilarious.

[Ian Larson]

Id like to also add to this discussion that the USGA didnt start working with the universities and local superintendent associations to develop a better growing medium for greens just for the sake of doing it.

Superintendents were having major issues with the native soil push-up greens decades ago. The USGA helped facilitate an answer to a problem.
They dont make a dime on every USGA spec green built. They provided a service to the supers, their clubs and to the game of golf. I applaud them for that.

[TEPaul]

"Pat, Pat, Pat...
What can I say to that other than you are the classic example of a member that only knows enough to be a huge pain in the ass to everyone at your club?"



Ian:

A perfect example of good and classic COMMONSENSE, and "telling-it-like-it-is" on your part! 

[TEPaul]

"That man would argue with a telephone pole and slap the pole because it dared not argue back.  Grin Grin"


Who said that? If it was said about Patrick I want to personally pin a blue ribbon on the man who said it about him!