[Ian Larson]

Ian:

Sorry to go back to the first page of this thread but I've just started reading it carefully from the beginning.

Regarding your post (Reply #33) you seem to be answering John Moore's question about topdressing and such changing the makeup of a profile or not. I suppose you're particularly concentrating on the inherent sand/soil/drainage makeup of the top profile but I was wondering given years of topdressing how much the surface of a green might tend to rise given various factors. I also noticed you mentioned Scott Anderson and his practices at HVGC.

So I called Scott just now and got him on a throne (toilet) in New Mexico.

I asked him how much the surfaces of various types of greens could rise over an extended period of time given various factors and maintenance practices. He said a lot given various factors such as straight sand topdressing. He said this is why he likes to mix in a higher percentage of organic material in his topdressing because he believes that organic material will naturally breakdown thatch and buildup far more than a greater percentage of sand will.

He also said he is and has been trying to stop the surfaces of his greens from continuing to rise and he does it this way and with tining and remixing back in.

Does that make sense to you? If you have some questions for him let me or Kyle Harris know and we'll get answers for you form him.

TEPaul,

         Im from the school of topdressing light and frequently. As in a dusting that can be watered in and forgot about every two weeks. It

saves money on bed-knives, its never compromising putting quality to the golfer and it prevents layering.

This is how I view topdressing....

1. It is the supplement to the aerification program, dilutting and matching the rate of accumulation of organic matter in between aerifications.

2. In conjunction with a verti-cutting program leaf blades are groomed to stand upright providing a very true putting surface.

3. Maintains firmness for playability.



From what I remember with Scotts write-up and videos is that he uses the organic in his topdressing. Which is great, thats a good thing. But

where I differ from Scott would be the frequency at which I like to topdress. Anyone correct me if Im wrong, but doesnt Scott topdress

infrequently. As in a handful of times through the season? And also promotes grain?


The frequency of topdressing would be why I wouldnt include organic and use straight sand. Scotts program works because he is on an

infrequent program and including organic is ok. On a frequent topdressing program I would only use straight sand because I am foremost

trying to dilute the organic matter, continually adding organic every other week is counter acting what Im trying to accomplish. It would mess

up the enviornment Im trying to create in the soil profile. The physical properties of the organic built up in the thatch layer would promote

slower water perk rates (because organic has retention properties).


I also understand that Scott is using organic as a means to incorporate microbes into the soil enviornment that help with the breakdown of

thatch and also aid in the conversion of sulfates to sulfites which is a benefit in preventing anaerobic conditions and black layer.


But here is my philosophy....

1. Promote an aerobic enviornment in the soil profile

2. An aerobic enviornment promotes aerobic microbes which are the beneficial microbes. There are bad (anaerobic) microbes.

3. Feed the microbial population, I always incorporate blackstrap molasses into my soil sprays. Its a simple sugar that microbes love.

4. Overall just promoting the beneficial microbe population that already exist in the soil. Every now and then I throw some "bugs in a jug"
       into the spray tank with the soil sprays.



Just for the record there is a company in Lancaster, Pa called "Organic Approach". Eric, the president is very passionate about this and could be a huge reference source for anyone interested. I have a lot of his organic products shipped out to L.A.


 

[Ian Larson]

Ian:

By the way, as far as the likelihood of green surfaces rising over the decades, about a year ago I was speaking to Mel Lucas (If you don't know who he is you need to). I call Mel something of a architectural or agronomic archaeologist----eg he's really good at analyzing the evolutionary reasons behind old profiles by deep core analyses and such.

Anyway, he was in North Carolina analyzing the greens of some old Ross course down there and he mentioned he'd found some old irrigation heads about two feet UNDER some green surfaces!! Isn't that amazing?!

That is quite amazing. What course was he analyzing? I have to assume he was not on one of the Pinehurst resort courses given the total reconstruction work that has taken place there over the past few years on the 3 remaining Ross courses.

Given that finding, assuming these are original or semi-original push-up green complexes, can we assume that these complexes have been able to last this long because of the constant change in soil/sand/organic matter under the grass? Meaning the Super adapted to the changes in the soil composition by sand/soil topdressing to alter the composition back to what it was before the change or to something better.

I am very curious to know what course we are talking about. I would also be curious to know how Ross's original push-up greens worked at Raleigh Country Club in the early days given our hard, dense clay soil here.

TEPaul and JKM,

When I was working at Riviera a few years ago we were starting the first round of the recent renovations. The first project was redoing the

front right bunker at #3. The top of the face was so built up from sand blast into the kikuyu, probably 2-3 feet. While excavating away all the

sand blast we found the original sprinkler system from when the course was built, buried under the 2-3 feet of sand blast.

One of my prized possessions is an original sprinkler that I cut off with a hacksaw and kept. Ive been meaning to get it mounted on a nice

wooden base. I like to imagine Bell or Thomas actually touched it, but thats getting too weird....

[TEPaul]

Ian:

I'd like to get Scott Anderson or maybe Kyle Harris (works at HVGC) to comment on about the second half of your post #125 at the paragraph that begins "The frequency of topdressing......"

I can comment on that stuff---eg it's over my head. 

By the way, if it makes some difference to what you said on that second half, HVGC is very low on over-all irrigation output.

[TEPaul]

"The top of the face was so built up from sand blast into the kikuyu, probably 2-3 feet. While excavating away all the
sand blast we found the original sprinkler system from when the course was built, buried under the 2-3 feet of sand blast."


Ian:

I know what you mean with that. During the Merion bunker project, Mel Lucas did a consult paper on that kind of thing. Concerning the front bunker on Merion East's #13, he said if someone started at the top of that bunker and cored down about 4-5 feet they would discover 'Hugh Wilson's fingerprints.' 

We've actually got some old photos that prove that to be true.

[TEPaul]

Here's about the first third of a good article from the USGA Green Section on the history and purpose of the USGA spec green. It was sent to me by John Kauffman of the University of Tennessee. I'll put the remainder of it up later:


The History of USGA Greens



Thirty Years of Green Section Greens

by JAMES M. LATHAM USGA Green Section (ret.)
THE PUBLICATION by the USGA Green Section in 1989 of Specifications for a Method of Putting Green Construction provided another step in the evolution of practices that enable golf course superintendents to cope with pressure for flawless turf on true, fast, putting surfaces which receive heavier play than ever before. The story of the USGA green actually began in the late 1940s and early 1950s, when studies began on the comparison of soils in "good" greens and "poor" greens. Observations on construction and topdressing mixtures published by the Green Section date from the early 1920s, but the soils were not subjected to scientific scrutiny in soils laboratories until after World War II.

Not all of the greens of that era were poor. Many are still in use and are maintained in the same manner as more recent greens, but it is practically impossible to duplicate them today. The early Green Section specifications closely followed the results of physical analysis of the soils in what were then considered good greens. Attempts to modify the poor greens were usually unscientific and often caused even worse conditions. Snake oils will always be with us to provide the desperate with what they hope will be miracle cures.

One of the early investigations on good versus poor soil conditions was made by R. R. Davis, at Purdue University. He measured water percolation and compared the capillary and noncapillary porosity of soils in putting greens under play. His investigation noted the effect of compaction on reducing the large pore space in the upper 31/2 inches of soil, leading to a suggestion that 4O% to 50% sand, with particles larger than 0.25 mm, be used in green construction mixes. One of his observations was particularly noteworthy:

In most instances air circulation is believed to be better around the best greens. More trees are found around the poorest greens, and tree roots are prevalent in these greens. Almost a decade of investigation after this and other research, the USGA Green Section published Specifications for a Method Of Putting Green Construction in the September 1960 issue of USGA Journal and Turf Management. It presented a construction technique that could be used anywhere in the world, including areas where ideal components were not easily or economically available. The strategy was based on developing a growing medium that provided resistance to compaction and drained readily, yet retained an adequate level of capillary moisture and nutrients to sustain turfgrass growth with normal maintenance.

The introductory remarks in the 1960 publication are applicable today:

The pace of golf activity and the traffic on golf courses is presently at a peak, however, which has never been equaled in our country. Many of the construction methods that were satisfactory in an earlier day, will no longer produce greens which will withstand the wear which is now imposed upon them.

Research into construction procedures and soil mixtures was sponsored by the Green Section at its own research station, in Beltsville, MD, and at Oklahoma State University, UCLA, and Texas A&M. The projects proved that problems of construction procedures and methods, and those of physical behavior of soils cannot be separated . . . and must be considered together if a desired result is to be produced."

[RJ_Daley]

I spent an incredible amount of time reading through this post.  Here is what I came up with.  I realised that if you just take Ian's posts and cut and paste them together, they run 23 pages of a "word" document so far and counting. 

Beyond the mere volume of writing (which won't make TEPaul even blink), I realised therein Ian's many detailed posts and answers to the others, we have pretty much a graduate level course for golf course construction techniques, that ought to be placed in a "lesson plan" and made part of the GCSAA's ongoing seminars, like one of those I took many years ago now, where Mike Hurdzan did one with a Wadsworth guy on "golf course construction techniques".

I have only cut and pasted Ian's posts, and specifically bulletted his mega post #78 which really goes wild.  I did not cut and paste the many very intelligent and great other posts by supers, and construction guys and Mrrs Chairmen Mucci-Paul    because Ian's posts pick all the others up in the form of answers to everything brought up by all these other very knowledgeable contributors to this whole thread. 

The thread should be marked out as a favorite to be readily called back up for ANYONE in the entire realm of people planning and developing a golf course as an owner, manager, or anyone in whatever position with a course or club who is contemplating or charged with making decisions on what to do with rebuilding greens, be they push-up, CA method, or perched water table organic ammendment rootzone over gravel and P-C pipe, (trying to not say USGA method  )

What a great effort all have made in exploring the subject.

I highly suggest Ian get an editor, or do it himself, and clean up all his responses into a 'white paper' and publish it with one of the trade journals, (probably Golf Management Mag of the GCSAA.

I'll e-mail the "Ian Chronicles" as a word doc for anyone that sends me their e-mail, via IM.  Unless you think we ought to wait for another 23 pages of cut and pastes... 

TEP, beware, there is another obsessed nut word meister mega poster looming on the horizon that may - if he lives long enough, give you a run for your prodigiousness of 'hypertypoarrhea' 

[TEPaul]

RJ:

Good points about Ian Larson's many and impressive educational posts. I doubt even that will keep Patrick Mucci from ceaselessly arguing with him however! 

[Ian Larson]

Taken from one of the threads on Geoff Shack's blog. I thought it was relevant and surprised more architects arent contributing here...



http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2009/3/2/so-you-feel-for-jack-a-little-bit-because-youre-not-allowed.html#comments





"
Hello all,

I've been a golf course architect for a little more than a dozen years, and have been lucky enough to be involved in the design, specification and construction of many hundreds of greens. We've done, California style, "push-up top-soil", pure sand, with drainage, without drainage....etc.etc. and finally by far the best - USGA spec. I can say without hesitation that using the USGA spec has never hindered our creativity. There is absolutely no correlation between the greens construction spec and the ability to create interesting greens.

As for your experiences Geoff, it would seem the stories you have heard or the jobs you have witnessed must have involved inexperienced contractors who didn't know how to maintain the sub-grade design intent through the different stages of construction. Trust me, it can be done, quite easily by people who know what they are doing.

As far as turf quality goes, the majority of superintendents will say the USGA spec, (which is not anything special, it's simply a common drainage detail used in many aspects of architecture and landscape architecture) gives them much more control and flexibility in the way they can manage their greens health, speed, firmness, and overall quality.

It would seem to me that an architect who says they will use an inferior green spec simply because it's easier for them to mold the soil to their liking, is taking a short sighted approach to it and is ultimately failing their clients, because that is who will pay for it in the long run. The usga spec is more difficult to build and requires more attention to detail and care in the construction phase, but it is short term pain for long term gain.

Mash.
03.3.2009 | Unregistered CommenterMashie"

[Patrick_Mucci]

"The inability to introduce pronounced contour and the ability to subsequently alter them is why I tend to favor push-up greens."

Pat:

First of all, when you say the inability to introduce pronounced counter into USGA spec greens, that should probably be qualified.

It's not really a matter of contour not being able to be introduced into USGA spec greens, it's only a matter of it taking more time and effort to do it during construction because the subgrade layering of a USGA green has to be matched across the profile and apparently for obvious reasons that's more time consuming and more work than a push-up.

It's more than that.
It's difficult to achieve precise continuity throughout several layers when they're severely sloped or when pronounced contours are desired.

Gravity, rain and craftsmanship play a huge role and influence the final product.

Time and money equates to MONEY, and money isn't always an impediment to a club or developer, but, the prospect of a failed product is an impediment.

I would doubt that an architect would spec USGA greens with dramatic contouring.

I can't imagine # 1, # 3 and # 6 at NGLA as USGA greens.
Those sharp dropoffs, spines and ridges would make it next to impossible.

At least this is the way Bill Coore explained it to me years ago but maybe you think you know something about USGA spec greens vs pushups that Bill Coore doesn't.

Bill may have been keeping the discussion at the lowest possible level, a level that he thought you might understand, and thus, rather than tax your brain with information beyond your scope of comprehension, information which I would routinely and readily devour, he kept his conversation at the novice 101 level.  Are you sure you're not confusing Bill Coore with Bill Cooregan, your local plumber ?

As far as USGA spec greens being more difficult to REcontour and redesign after the fact, maybe that could be looked at as a good thing. Too many people just think to redesign greens and soften them in an on-goig attempt to keep upping green speed, in my opinion.

You present a flawed premise.
Who is going to soften greens that are already soft.
I don't know of any dramatically contoured greens.
Do you know of any dramatically contoured USGA spec'd greens ?

Adios might be the only exception, and I'll find out if they're USGA spec'd greens within the next 10 days.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Edit: as closed for debate as I feel this statement is, I am sure Patrick will try to argue that it is somehow incorrect. Perhaps he will disagree with the spelling of 'waaaaayyyyyyy' saying it should be spelled 'wwaaaaaayyyyyy.' 

JKM,

You're wrong again.

And, you're all dolts.

The correct spelling of the word is "WHEY"

[Patrick_Mucci]

"If you analyze the vast majority of USGA greens you won't find the pronounced features found in push-up greens.  You won't find spines, ridges, mounds, shelfs, etc.,etc."

...all of this was accomplished at Dove Mountain with USGA greens. I watched alot of that tournament all four days and can remember each of
those features distinctly. I would love to have the contour maps of those greens.

Ian, would you say that Dove Mountain is the norm or the exception ?
I too would love to see contour maps of those greens.

The other points you keep bringing up with poor construction and the chance of out-of-spec materials being used is all in the hands of the
builder, the owner, the architect, the developer etc.. I can say with the utmost certainty that an architect like Gil Hanse, who himself probably
prefers push-up greens, would be involved with material selection if he was designing USGA spec greens.

Selecting the materials and having those materials delivered on site is not a given, unless you feel that a sub-contractor wouldn't like to increase their profits.  On site inspection and quality control is an issue.  It's another area where things can go wrong, despite the best efforts of the architect.
The architect isn't going to be on site for every delivery and application.

Even with re-contouring a push-up green. Stripping the sod not only on the green but far enough out into the surrounds so a very natural
tie-in can be achieved. Then coming in with a tractor and box blade or even a bulldozer. I hate to tell you but that 80 year old push-up green
that took 80 years to achieve a beautiful soil profile, has just been reset to day one.

If the objective was to re-contour the green and stay with the native soil as a growing medium. The soil structure of the original profile has
been completely altered and disrupted by that bulldozer.

That can be dealt with by rolling up the sod, labeling it, excavating the area to be expanded into, regrading that area by first applying plugs/soil that have been excavated from the greens and stockpiled for 20 years, then rolling back the sod to its original position.

I certainly wouldn't recommend a Bulldozer for the job.
Especially if the reshaping was confined to limited areas or the added areas, using smaller equipment would seem the prudent choice.

While it's not a perfect fit, it's pretty close.
And, the native soil and profile stays pretty much intact.

With a USGA green you have to excavate, in bath tub fashion, especially when you consider that the USGA green you'll be amending is probably the older version with more layers.

The question is, if you were rebuilding one or two USGA greens on a golf course, would you reinstall USGA greens with the current specs, or would you attempt to replicate the USGA greens with the old specs ?

I don't think you have that dilema with a push up green.

[Bryan Bergner]

Pat,

Your post:

 "The question is, if you were rebuilding one or two USGA greens on a golf course, would you reinstall USGA greens with the current specs, or would you attempt to replicate the USGA greens with the old specs ?  I don't think you have that dilema with a push up green."

You are correct in that you will have a dilemma regarding older versus newer USGA specs; however, it has been my experience that there is a different dilemma when reconstructing a few push up greens to mimic the other existing push up greens on the course.  If the greens on the course have received years of consistent sand topdressing they will have accumulated a layer that will need to be replicated on the newly constructed greens.  Obtaining a soil medium which replicates the topdressing specs is an important issue which may or may not be a problem depending on the availability of the soil medium needed for the project.

[Donnie Beck]

Been reading this thread for days but getting Married on Saturday and haven't had time to contribute. I would guess that most on this site would agree that Doak, C&C and Hanse design some of the most interesting modern greens. What percentage of their greens have used the USGA method?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

That's where twenty years of stockpiling plugs comes into play.

With USGA greens theres a definite structure based on the year they were built.

I'm not so sure that you can look at pushup greens the same way.
I'm prone to believe that there's a greater degree of variation in their structure in terms of universal consistency.

My guess is that core samples from different courses would reveal different profiles.

One would have to take and record a great number of core samples in order to understand the structure of the subsoil as I'm sure you will not get the structural consistency found in USGA greens.

Ian,

I wonder if the removal of the choker layer was a outgrowth of problems associated with replicating all levels.

Certainly, constructing greens with two layers is easier than constructing greens with three or more layers.

[TEPaul]

"I would guess that most on this site would agree that Doak, C&C and Hanse design some of the most interesting modern greens. What percentage of their greens have used the USGA method?"

Donnie:

That's a good question, and I have no idea. I did once ask Coore (quite a while ago) about how he decides what kind of green construction method to use and he said he did prefer to do push-up greens depending on the site and soil but that he almost always left the call to the super simply because he was the one who would be left to maintain the greens over time.

[Greg Chambers]

Pat,

You keep going back to the severe contouring of greens and that USGA greens are so difficult to build for this type of green.  But the simple fact is that it's not.  I guarantee you that a combination of high green speeds and low heights of cut, which go hand in hand, are the main reasons architects aren't more bold in their designs these days.  It has nothing to do with the construction method.  And I have first hand experience with this, on more than one occasion.

[Sean_A]

Jeepers!  And here I was thinking that push up greens never went out of style.

Ciao

[John Moore II]

Jeepers!  And here I was thinking that push up greens never went out of style.

Ciao

I should say that they didn't go out of style on courses that have soil profiles good enough to handle push-up construction.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ian,

first I would like to apologise for saying your post was to long. It should be praised and not put down, when someone takes the time and effort to explain their point of view in full. My only defence is that I am very pressed for time and short posts help me keep up with a thread.

As I have said I have very little time but will answer the question you paced at some point in the future (it may be a week or two though).

Jon

[Jerry Kluger]

Gentlemen:

I would really like to know how a pushup green which is fitted with a drainage system compares to one without drainage and compares to a USGA green?  My course has pushup greens which were retrofitted with a drainage system - is this really worthwhile?  It is my understanding that changing the contours of the green could be difficult because of the drainage system - is that correct? 

Cheers, Jerry

[Ian Larson]

Patrick,


"Ian, would you say that Dove Mountain is the norm or the exception ?
I too would love to see contour maps of those greens."

   
            ....I would say that Dove Mountain is the exception, especially because of our reaction to it here on GCA and the tour players
                reactions.

                When have any of us seen such bold contours in championship golf besides Augusta?

                And when have we seen such bold contours with all parties involved being responsible and ballsy enough to keep the green speeds
                proportional to the contouring?

                Its the exception because Jack took the risk of making those contours some of the boldest seen around lately. And with Jack
                being the golfer he is, Im absolutely sure he knew he was going to make them bold, but also make sure the green speeds are
                always going to match that boldness. In my book thats what its all about, and shocked hes not receiving more praise on here.
                I think we need to take a step back and quit being architecture snobs for a minute. Put aside opinions of what we think of Jacks
                work in general. And look at the step that Jack took. Interesting greens with puttable speeds. Thats a step in the right direction,
                in my opinion.

                Dove Mountain is the exception because of green speeds going down while contouring goes up. Its not the exception for taking on
                the "challenging" construction process of heavily contoured USGA spec greens.



"Selecting the materials and having those materials delivered on site is not a given, unless you feel that a sub-contractor wouldn't like to increase their profits.  On site inspection and quality control is an issue.  It's another area where things can go wrong, despite the best efforts of the architect.
The architect isn't going to be on site for every delivery and application."


         .......If a projects management team has been properly selected and in place this is all false. Whether it is a new construction or a
                renovation to an existing. There should be, and usually ALWAYS IS, the golf course superintendent with an assistant and
                supplementary staff in place that are there to represent the best interests of the club.

                It should be, and usually ALWAYS IS, the golf course superintendents responsibilty to ensure that the right materials are selected
                and their quality is maintained throughout the completion of the project. The members, the clubs, developers, owners etc etc are
                never just at the contractors mercy when it comes to material selection and quality control. If that is the case then the powers that
                be did a very poor job in making sure the right people are in the right seats on the right bus.

                I can personally remember making the drive to the sand plants to retrieve samples from the center of the mix piles and personally
                sending them off to be analyzed. I can also remember having the transport trucks dumping mix on-site where those piles would
                sit for a week while we had individual piles tested and didnt install them until we got the green light from the lab.

                So in disagreement, its not the architects responsibilty to choose the method of construction. The club makes a decision based on
                evaluations done by consultants of their choice. The architects are definetely involved every step of the way and are encouraged
                to give their opinion and advice. But they dont have the final say and responsibilty in the process.




"That can be dealt with by rolling up the sod, labeling it, excavating the area to be expanded into, regrading that area by first applying plugs/soil that have been excavated from the greens and stockpiled for 20 years, then rolling back the sod to its original position.

I certainly wouldn't recommend a Bulldozer for the job.
Especially if the reshaping was confined to limited areas or the added areas, using smaller equipment would seem the prudent choice.

While it's not a perfect fit, it's pretty close.
And, the native soil and profile stays pretty much intact.

With a USGA green you have to excavate, in bath tub fashion, especially when you consider that the USGA green you'll be amending is probably the older version with more layers.

The question is, if you were rebuilding one or two USGA greens on a golf course, would you reinstall USGA greens with the current specs, or would you attempt to replicate the USGA greens with the old specs ?

I don't think you have that dilema with a push up green."



          ......So now you are talking about only expanding a green? I thought all along that you referring to re-contouring an entire green
                especially when you said, in reference to my experience, that green extensions didnt count.

                OK, as far as green EXTENSIONS on push-up greens......

                On a site with sandier soil, its possible to just mow the grass down to greens height out to where the new greens edge is wanted.
                This is what they did at Shinnecock according to a college buddy that was the Assistant there.

                On a site with heavier soil, Im not QUITE following you on your process, you would-

                1. "Excavate the area to be expanded in to"

                2. "regrading that area by first applying plugs/soil that have been excavated from the greens and stockpiled for 20 years"?

                I understand you sod process, I kinda understand #1 and agree to an extent, I dont really follow #2. My problem with #2 is that
                I wouldnt put plugs from the aerification plug stockpile into the rootzone. I know what youre getting at by using soil with similar
                characteristics, but I wouldnt include old plugs.

                If it were possible to seperate the soil from plugs through screening it, that soil would be a perfect candidate. Probably the best
                candidate.

                This would work if the soil was screened from the plugs. But still with a couple conditions...

                1. Does the superintendent have an ample stockpile to work with?

                2. After the stockpile is screened, is the quantity of usable soil enough to cover all of the extensions?

               

If the super doesnt have access to a stockpile of plugs/soil from aerifications what should done? Heres my idea....


                1. Scalp the grass down to collar height out to where the new extension edge is desired.

                2. Do not cut the sod up yet. Just keep it at collar height as you do #3.

                3. Aerify with 3/8" tines and backfill the extension area with 80-20 sand/organic mix once a week for a month, maybe even 2?

                4. After a month or two of punching holes and sanding that soil profile is pretty set to support greens height turf.

                5. Cut the sod off and necessary ammendments needed for quick  turf establishment.

                6. Sod the area with greens height sod from the nursery. Keep it watered, give it a couple weeks to throw roots down and mow it.


 
Going about it this way prepares the area that is about to become a green with ample amount of sand to facilitate good drainage and channels
for the new sod to really throw down some strong roots in establishment. The most important thing could be that this should prevent any need for trying to compact newly installed and porous soil. Which will also prevent settling or excessive compaction. The majority of the original has been kept intact while incorporating a good sand content.



Re-contouring and entire green site is a horse of another color that will require at least a mini excavator with a grading blade or a small scraper dozer or tractor and box blade. Let me know if you want to discuss entire green sites.
 
 

[Ian Larson]

Pat,


"Ian,

I wonder if the removal of the choker layer was a outgrowth of problems associated with replicating all levels.

Certainly, constructing greens with two layers is easier than constructing greens with three or more layers."



I would think that could be true. But my twist on it would be that the USGA's intent was to streamline the method to make it cheaper and faster as well. Matching the layers wasnt necessarily "hard". A third layer just took that much more time, that much more money and that much more space to stockpile. The 3 layer method worked, and it still works. But kudos to the USGA for continually researching and developing faster and more cost effective ways to get the job done.

[Patrick_Mucci]

You keep going back to the severe contouring of greens and that USGA greens are so difficult to build for this type of green.  But the simple fact is that it's not.  I guarantee you that a combination of high green speeds and low heights of cut, which go hand in hand, are the main reasons architects aren't more bold in their designs these days. 

Greg, that's only a recent phenomenon.

Did you see the USGA chart reflecting green speeds in 1990 ?

8.6 was considered FAST.

It has nothing to do with the construction method.  And I have first hand experience with this, on more than one occasion.

That may be, but it doesn't negate the fact that USGA greens are more expensive, take more time to build and are less maleable.

[Pat Brockwell]

Pat,
Regardless of construction method, it's a bad idea to plan on redesigning greens once built, planted and grown in, don't you think?  I believe most greens construction decisions are not based on future redesign, but on cost and agronomic factors.  Your premise is like the justification for going with a mobile home.  If pushups do make a comeback it won't be for the ability to redesign them later.  I think I could get away with pushups at our site, but I'm not willing to bet the success of the project on it!  We'll do California greens on the next 18 at Black Mesa..

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Brockwell,

That was just ONE of the reasons, not the sole reason.

With COST now becoming more important than ever it would be interesting to determine today's cost to build, per square foot, for a USGA green and a Push-up green.  Using 150,000 and 200,000 sq/ft

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()