[John Moore II]

"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!

I said that. And yes, it was directed at Patrick.    Where's my blue ribbon?

[Joe Hancock]

"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!

I said that. And yes, it was directed at Patrick.    Where's my blue ribbon?

"Bartender, pour that man a Pabst...."

[TEPaul]

"  Where's my blue ribbon?"


John K:

It is here, in the barn/office in Pennsylvania, otherwise known as the World Headquarters of CONCEPTUAL Golf Course Architecture.

Where are you?

And a better question yet, what in the world are we going to do on here on some of these more technical and sophisticated threads with this uninformed and adolescent-acting discusser, Patrick Mucci? I say we send the short-panter to bed with no supper!

[Kyle Harris]

"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!

I said that. And yes, it was directed at Patrick.    Where's my blue ribbon?

"Bartender, pour that man a Pabst...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_mZrLRl0I

[Joe Hancock]

"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!

I said that. And yes, it was directed at Patrick.    Where's my blue ribbon?

"Bartender, pour that man a Pabst...."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI_mZrLRl0I

Kyle,

That couldn't have combined two different sports any better as it pertains to this thread. Perfect!

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

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?

That's your uninformed opinion.

And, I don't think you want to match IQ's.

The proof is in the product I produced..
A product that turned out very well.

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.

Those are your words, not mine.
Try being intellectually honest when you post.

How does that not sound like JK and how is that factual?


Obviously, geometric like reasoning is a stretch for you, so I'll provide you with a simple example.  Does the staff engaged in the daily maintainance of a golf course have the same knowledge base and pay level as the Superintendent ?  Take as much time extrapolating and interpolating as necessary.  The answer is self evident.

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.

It is you and you alone who have erroneously misrepresented my statements and presented a dishonest interpretation.

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".

What does that have to do with how I treat or categorize people ?

As to my experience, It was a little more than as a casual observer.

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 NEVER said anyone was unmotivated.
That's a LIE on your part.
Another indication of your inability to be honest.

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.

Guess what, so do I.

But you have headed a couple committees at your club and have SEEN a construction crew or two.

Would you like to wager that my experience extends beyond your description, blowhard ?

So I guess you do have the background and experience to say such things.


I do, you're just not aware of it.
AND, more importantly, I didn't say anything derogatory, that's your flawed interpretation.

All in all I have been involved with the construction of over 100 greens so far,

Alterations and/or amendments or total construction of new greens ?
You outnumber me by a few multiples if it's total construction of new greens, amendments to existing greens don't count.

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.

That's very funny.
Why not ask every, and I mean every superinendent that's ever worked with me.  You might find that you're way off base.
If being a superintendent sucks for you, perhaps you should be more introspective and ask, why ?

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.


OK, I've passed that test, now what.

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.

You just CONTRADICTED YOURSELF.

First you say that they weren't harder to construct, then you say they were more time consuming and more expensive to build.

Make up your mind.

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!

I guess Charles Blair Macdonald just pushed some dirt arond and planted some seed.  I guess his greens, and Ross's greens, and Tillinghast's greens are far inferior to the ones at Dove Mountain.

Or, maybe, the climate in Tuscon is conducive to a good grow in.
I'm sure irrigation systems and money had nothing to do with your success.

You stated that USGA greens are:
more expensive to build.
take more time to build

Surely you can relate that to the opening post in this thread.
          
Severe contours on a USGA green like Dove Mountain are not the norm because of green speeds and low mowing heights.

I never said they were.

It has nothing to do with the fact that its a USGA spec.


Baloney.
The specs are a clear impediment to severe contouring because every level must be identical, a simple drafting in the office, but, a difficult achievement in the field

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.  

You're getting carried away with your abilities and reality.

Ive tried to answer your questions and comments a couple times now 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 hasn't that option manifested itself in a great number of push-up greens ?

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

More baloney, I know greens that were topdressed for decades with very little sand.  EXPLAIN THAT !

Patrick could you please elaborate on the numerous problems youve cited that are associated with USGA greens?

Settling
Perk rates
disease
poor quality

And compare that to why there are not the same problems with an 80 year push-up?

I thought you said you knew everything about construction ?

Where do you get your materials for USGA greens ?

Do you go through a bidding process with multiple vendors ?

Do you go through extensive, dual quality control analyis, on site ?

Do you inspect every level making sure that the depth of every layer is perfect.

Does it ever rain during construction ?

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

something.

When did DNA testing of grasses take root (pun intended) ?

When did the State of Florida reinstitute grass certification ? 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Push ups are only greens to nerds. They're brassieres to normal men....

[Joe Hancock]

Push ups are only greens to nerds. They're brassieres to normal men....

Mark,

Nice try, but I'm afraid it's of no use. If beer didn't get them to take a break, what makes you think IBG can derail them from their word skirmish?

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

At which clubs were you involved with green reconstruction? I'd like to give the Superintendent a call for my own education. PM me if you'd like.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

Don't try to pull that bullshit.
Consider yourself persona non grata with me.

The superintendents were/are Mike Bailey and Bob Randquist.
You can reach Bob at Boca Rio.  I don't know where Mike is these days.

You can also call Brad Klein who's had direct conversations with Bob about me.

You can also call John O'Keefe and David Pugh and others as well.
Consider this our last personal communication.

[JESII]

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?

Ian,

I have not read most of this thread, so forgive me if this is redundant but my understanding of a primary concern with USGA greens is the high temperature the sand composition can reach. I don't know the ratios, but push-up / surface draining greens with a lower percentage of sand can seem to survive better in the hot days of summer...no?

[Ian Larson]

I like my beer to have a little more class than PBR 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3zdibHV-WU



...Ive got some things to do ill return with some responses in a bit.

[SL_Solow]

Pat/Ian;  I hate to intrude on an argument that has degenerated into the personal and lost the focus of a very good topic but I feel compelled.

I am fond of push up greens.  I disagree with those who have suggested that they cannot drain properly, even in heavy soils.  The good architects of old were able to deal with these problems through surface drainage.  Some of the slopes built to accomodate this necessity made for interesting putting.  Aggressive top dressing which helps smooth the greens also helps build a sandy subsurface which aids growing conditions and drainage.

Most of the greens at my home course in suburban Chicago, which are thought to be quite good, date back to 1921. While many have been regrassed, they continue to function.  Indeed, in anticipation of a potential need (desire) to regrass in the future, we built a practice area green fom push up materials and grassed it with 2 of the "A" varieties which took well and flourished.

Nonetheless I would be surprised if we see a return to push up greens in new construction.  First, I don't think many people consider the need for reconstruction/revision at the time they are building a new green.  Second, most architects and greenkeepers I have spoken with opt for USGA specs out of a combination of beliefs.  First many believe that these greens perform better; they buy into the science.  Second, they believe that if they build a USGA green and it performs poorly, they can say they built a "state of the art" green, what more could they do?  But if they build a push up green and it "fails", they will be criticized for ignoring the USGA recommendations.

[Greg Chambers]

As I've noted in prior posts, I was a part of a new construction in 2001 that built push up greens.  The course was open within eight months of the beginning of construction, and the greens were pure as can be, so I don't buy the fact that grow in is slower on push ups.  I don't think, however, that you'll see more push ups being built simply from a liability stand point.  Due to the cost of construction of a USGA spec green, I do feel like if the site is right (sandy to sandy loam) then the building of push ups would be the way to go, no doubt.  And I do agree that there is more of a free-form appeal to building push up greens in that the architect is free to change contours right up to the point of grassing, where this can't be accomplished with USGA spec due to the fact that the sub-grade was most likely built per plan.

[John Gosselin]

Pat,

With out a doubt it is much easier to shape the entire green surrounds and green surface all together. The are basically no tie ins form the green to surrounds. It all blends so well with little effort. Architecturally this has to be the ideal.

Some new projects shape everything as if were going to be a push up green and then painstakingly excavate out a green cavity. Next best I would guess.

As far as USGA greens are concerned I have never seen one that is built correct and then managed correctly be anything other than fantastic. Unfortunately many that I have seen that have issues are not USGA greens because someone has altered the specs either when building or shortly there after. 

Settling
Perk rates
disease
poor quality

IMHO your examples would more than likely be related to poor construction, materials out of spec, and or mismanagement.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Settling
Perk rates
disease
poor quality

IMHO your examples would more than likely be related to poor construction, materials out of spec, and or mismanagement.

Irrespective of the cause, these are some of the problems associated with USGA greens.

Would you say that USGA greens have more "moving parts" and are thus more prone to defects ?

[Jeff Goldman]

"Due to the cost of construction of a USGA spec green, I do feel like if the site is right (sandy to sandy loam) then the building of push ups would be the way to go, no doubt"

Bingo.  As a member (or even someone with some authority on a renovation project), I'm not going to disagree with our superintendent who, though very comfortable with the 80 year-old push up greens at the club, thinks that in building a new green the crummy clay soil makes the risk of a push up green too great.  Would you try to insist that push up greens be built no matter what the soil is like Patrick?

Also, I've done a bit of archeology on club histories, and it appears that many clubs had significant problems with their greens back when they were built, and OFCC was no different.  I got articles from the club magazines back then that talk about how the greens are going to be redone, about how they are going to use new or more layers of stuff, sand, gravel, hummus etc. etc. to try to get them to work better, and other issues with them.  So I would not presume that these 80 year-old greens always functioned so well without going back through the history to see.

Interesting that awhile ago there was a thread about how lousy USGA greens were in comparison to push up greens, and now we have one where the value of USGA greens is presumed.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,

With out a doubt it is much easier to shape the entire green surrounds and green surface all together. The are basically no tie ins form the green to surrounds. It all blends so well with little effort. Architecturally this has to be the ideal.

Some new projects shape everything as if were going to be a push up green and then painstakingly excavate out a green cavity. Next best I would guess.

As far as USGA greens are concerned I have never seen one that is built correct and then managed correctly be anything other than fantastic. Unfortunately many that I have seen that have issues are not USGA greens because someone has altered the specs either when building or shortly there after. 

Settling
Perk rates
disease
poor quality

IMHO your examples would more than likely be related to poor construction, materials out of spec, and or mismanagement.

John,
What you say above is exactly my biggest concern with USGA Greens......and it is easy to construct the layers incorrectly and ......so often a change is made on the surface hoping there will not be a problem and realizing most will never know......

[Bradley Anderson]

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.

Patrick,

My biggest problem with USGA greens was the sand did not buffer the minerals that were inherent in my irrigation source. Every time you water a green you are depositing whatever is in the irrigation water. With clayey loamy soils those elements are buffered and rendered less harmful. So now you must flush the green with a lot of water to move the mineral deposts through the system. People kept telling me about how their greens would be so nice and firm after they flushed them. I don't know, every time I tried flushing the greens I was making the whole green and the bunkers unplayable.

I did some of my own USGA green research with a CO2 meter. I was able to prove that the perched water table does not really work. In the swales I documented higher C02 levels and lower O2 levels. That meant that the water was accumulating in the swales, but that was not supposed to happen because the perched water table was supposed to equalize the moisture across the whole profile of the green.

The only green that had a balanced C02 and 02 levels was the practice green. Now why would that be? Because the practice green was not laid out to recieve approach shots - it was tilted into the face of play, and subsequently the water could shed off of it in five directions, more or less of equal square area. But on greens that are tilted in to the face of play, you always end up with the largest percentage of water moving off the front of the green. And that's where you ussually see problems with the USGA green is up in the front where most of the water is flowing off the green.

I think that the guys who love thier USGA greens might be in places where the water source is clean, or where the architect doesn't convey more than 50% of the water off the green in any one direction.

Of course all of this is relative. The USGA green is a good green if built properly and managed properly. I just don't think it is the perfect green or the best green. Like any thing else it has pros and cons.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Due to the cost of construction of a USGA spec green, I do feel like if the site is right (sandy to sandy loam) then the building of push ups would be the way to go, no doubt"

Bingo.  As a member (or even someone with some authority on a renovation project), I'm not going to disagree with our superintendent who, though very comfortable with the 80 year-old push up greens at the club, thinks that in building a new green the crummy clay soil makes the risk of a push up green too great.  Would you try to insist that push up greens be built no matter what the soil is like Patrick?

Yes, for two reasons.
One, if they were successfully built before, chances are they can be successfully built again.
Two, if you build your USGA green it will never be the same as the other 17 greens, in playability and maintainance.
So, I'd go with the push-up.
You can always go with the USGA green at some point in the future.

Also, I've done a bit of archeology on club histories, and it appears that many clubs had significant problems with their greens back when they were built, and OFCC was no different.  I got articles from the club magazines back then that talk about how the greens are going to be redone, about how they are going to use new or more layers of stuff, sand, gravel, hummus etc. etc. to try to get them to work better, and other issues with them.  So I would not presume that these 80 year-old greens always functioned so well without going back through the history to see.


I can't speak for OFCC, but, I do know that club magazines often present the views of the authors, not the membership.

I know of several clubs in the area that have had successful push-ups for 80 years and the only problems they've had are the more common pest and plant diseases that affect most grasses/greens.

Structurally, they've held up magnificently, and, they've performed well, even at high speeds.

Interesting that awhile ago there was a thread about how lousy USGA greens were in comparison to push up greens, and now we have one where the value of USGA greens is presumed.

I don't know who made that presumption.
I listed four general problems encountered with USGA spec greens.

[Craig Sweet]

Patrick...

Push up bras have made a comeback...why not push up greens?

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick...

Push up bras have made a comeback...why not push up greens?

Indeed Craig and both can increase the modelling

[TEPaul]

I certainly want to take the time to read this thread thoroughly but for now I have a small question to ask. We completely redid a green at my club about 5-6 years ago (with Gil Hanse) and I think its a push-up or a fairly close variation of that. I think I remember hearing that a club could depreciate the cost of a USGA spec green but not a push-up.

Is that true, and if so, why is that?

[Greg Chambers]

TE,

I've heard the same thing.  It's due to the fact of the drainage and different materials involved in the construction.  Basically, the green will wear out over time due to failure of construction materials.  I believe the said lifespan is somewhere around 25 years.

[John Moore II]

"Due to the cost of construction of a USGA spec green, I do feel like if the site is right (sandy to sandy loam) then the building of push ups would be the way to go, no doubt"

Bingo.  As a member (or even someone with some authority on a renovation project), I'm not going to disagree with our superintendent who, though very comfortable with the 80 year-old push up greens at the club, thinks that in building a new green the crummy clay soil makes the risk of a push up green too great.  Would you try to insist that push up greens be built no matter what the soil is like Patrick?

Yes, for two reasons.
One, if they were successfully built before, chances are they can be successfully built again.
Two, if you build your USGA green it will never be the same as the other 17 greens, in playability and maintainance.
So, I'd go with the push-up.
You can always go with the USGA green at some point in the future.

On a renovation project where the greens have been proven to work, regardless of soil conditions, then certainly, stay with the push-up greens that have been proven to work on this site and will be cheaper to reconstruct.

But wouldn't it be more cost effective on a new construction site with suspect soil (like a course in the mountains with a very dense clay soil base or something of that sort) to go ahead and build the green to USGA specifications? I mean, if you build the entire course with push-up greens, with the entire cost of construction being, say $5 million, and they fail, what then? Now you have to pump in another $1 million or whatever in order to convert the greens to USGA spec, not to mention lost revenue from having to close the course. That does not seem to make the most sense in the situation where the soil is all ready poor. (Again, his is assuming a new construction course, not a renovation. And when you decide to pick this apart, like I know you will, please don't complain about the dollar amounts I used. Those are general figures to just forward the idea of reconstruction costs, not concrete numbers.)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()