[Mike_Young]

http://aggca.blogspot.com/2010/02/usga-greens-and-emperors-new-clothes.html

read the first article

[jeffwarne]

Mike,
Now you're going to tell me the equipment regulators don't get it too.........
Perhaps run a 10 year study to see if Balata on wood goes farther than graphite/Titanium on a longer shaft hitting a superhigh tech dimpled hard ball that spins.........

but remember, no one pays fat salaries for common sense (to steal the conclusion from the article)

[TEPaul]

Mike:

Do you know Armen Suny?

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

Do you know Armen Suny?

TP,
I do know Armen....I think he is from Philly....you may not remember him because I don't think he has ever been a USGA agronomist

[Kyle Harris]

Mike:

Do you know Armen Suny?

Seems like someone better suited to growing grass than writing. That was a tough read.

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

Do you know Armen Suny?

Seems like someone better suited to growing grass than writing. That was a tough read.

Kyle,
That's sounds like the opposite of a USGA type guy....hmmmmm...

[Tom MacWood]

Mike:

Do you know Armen Suny?

Seems like someone better suited to growing grass than writing. That was a tough read.

Could you point to something you have written?

[Art_Schaupeter]

I had the very good fortune of designing the first two golf courses that Foresight Golf built in San Antonio eight and eleven years ago.  There isn't one foot of drain pipe or one pound of gravel in any of the greens, and they have always performed and held up beautifully.  Ed Miller and Armen have been advocates of this high performance push up green construction method for a long time, and I have seen it work firsthand.  I have used the method on some other projects as well where budgetary constraints were very tight, including bentgrass greens in the transition zone.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike:

Do you know Armen Suny?

Seems like someone better suited to growing grass than writing. That was a tough read.

Could you point to something you have written?

No, but I argue the premise that my own writing ability somehow invalidates my claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[Kyle Harris]

Perhaps I should clarify my comments:

I take umbrage with a number of points in this paragraph:

"For decades now the USGA with its naked greens construction method has bullied courses and Architects into the most expensive green construction method in common use with no empirical evidence that its method is better. We are supposed to blindly go along with their green construction method despite the fact that with their tens of millions of dollars spent on research that they have not adequately investigated alternative green construction methods. Yes there have been studies but as we all know, research has become highly politicized and results can unfortunately be based upon funding and future funding."

Bullied? Really? Will the architects who participate on this site, or any and all in general, please stand up and be counted if they've felt BULLIED by the USGA into using their construction method?

And then, there is no empirical data, but then there were studies, but of course they COULD be skewed by funding concerns. Could he cite his reasons for drawing this conclusion?

How long did those push up greens take to grow in? How soon after their grow in were they pushed to the standards of today's maintenance?

I'm no USGA apologist, but I'd at least like some decent writing and argument construction from the other side of the equation. It makes for an easier path to knowledge. This article is nothing more than fear-mongering.

[Kyle Harris]

And then this:

"As a turf consultant I used to enjoy taking Superintendents to one of their better USGA greens and looking at the collar on the far side of the green that got very little traffic and then looking at the adjacent men’s tee that got a lot of traffic. Invariably the highly trafficked tee turf, that often had the same grass, mowing height, and schedule as the green collar was in far better condition even though it was typically built with less grade, often no drainage, and only 4-6 inches of sand. The tee construction cost 25% of the green construction and was in better shape. I used to ask Superintendents if maybe we should start building the greens like the tees so that they would be in better shape and cost less to build. They would usually pause and then start regurgitating what they had learned in school. Maybe we should teach deductive reasoning as a turf course."

So, a swatch of grass that is intensely managed in a 30 inch width subject to MOWERS TURNING on them in a highly localized area may look a bit more tired than a high traffic, but much larger area on which traffic could be spread around day-to-day?

Well duh.

I've taken that deductive reasoning class, and it taught me that the plural of anecdote is not data.

[Mike_Young]

Perhaps I should clarify my comments:

I take umbrage with a number of points in this paragraph:

"For decades now the USGA with its naked greens construction method has bullied courses and Architects into the most expensive green construction method in common use with no empirical evidence that its method is better. We are supposed to blindly go along with their green construction method despite the fact that with their tens of millions of dollars spent on research that they have not adequately investigated alternative green construction methods. Yes there have been studies but as we all know, research has become highly politicized and results can unfortunately be based upon funding and future funding."

Bullied? Really? Will the architects who participate on this site, or any and all in general, please stand up and be counted if they've felt BULLIED by the USGA into using their construction method?
IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE KYLE....SO MUCH IS OUT THERE WHERE COMMITTEES AND CLUBS DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DON'T KNOW AND THUS THEY RELY ON THE USGA AND IT BECOMES MUCH EASIER TO NOT ARGUE THE POINT....AND THEN IF THE USGA GREEN DOES NOT WORK AS THEY EXPECTED THEY WILL TRY TO SAY IT IS CONSTRUCTED INCORRECTLY...WELL ..IF ONLY A HALF INCH TOLERANCE IN LAYERS IS ACCEPTABLE...THEN THERE ARE A LOT OF USGA GREENS CONSTRUCTED INCORRECTLY....

And then, there is no empirical data, but then there were studies, but of course they COULD be skewed by funding concerns. Could he cite his reasons for drawing this conclusion?  I AM SURE HE COULD...BUT YOU KNOW THAT...

How long did those push up greens take to grow in? How soon after their grow in were they pushed to the standards of today's maintenance?  WILL YOU DEFINE PUSH UP GREEN....

I'm no USGA apologist, but I'd at least like some decent writing and argument construction from the other side of the equation. It makes for an easier path to knowledge. This article is nothing more than fear-mongering.   DISAGREE....

KYLE,
NOT JUMPING YOU BUT YOU ARE AN INTELLIGENT YOUNG MAN WHO KNOWS THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD POINTS IN THAT ARTICLE..I BET SLIM WOULD EVEN AGREE ON SOME OF THEM...

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

You probably missed this passage from his "Philosophy of Golf Course Architecture."

"We have probably all looked at that one golf architecture website one too many times. And as far as that goes, I think that we should come up with a 12 step program to help the golf course architecture junkies get off of the juice and return to society as productive members. I could probably teach them to mow greens or maybe rake bunkers. Perhaps with their love of design they could rock rake by hand. Their time spent doing that would be far better for golf than their time spent with the adnausum discussions of golf course design. Really, do you think that the original designers, if man did do the design, spent as much time thinking about it as you do talking about it and trying to understand the designer’s subtle nuances?"

 

[Mike_Young]

Kyle,
I have always enjoyed your comments and your interleck....if you were asked to find a more efficient way to drain a bath tub...how would you do it? Doesn't matter what you have in that tub..just get the water out in a very efficient and DEPENDABLE method....

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

You probably missed this passage from his "Philosophy of Golf Course Architecture."

"We have probably all looked at that one golf architecture website one too many times. And as far as that goes, I think that we should come up with a 12 step program to help the golf course architecture junkies get off of the juice and return to society as productive members. I could probably teach them to mow greens or maybe rake bunkers. Perhaps with their love of design they could rock rake by hand. Their time spent doing that would be far better for golf than their time spent with the adnausum discussions of golf course design. Really, do you think that the original designers, if man did do the design, spent as much time thinking about it as you do talking about it and trying to understand the designer’s subtle nuances?"

 

Good point

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Their are a lot of great points in that article.

He is spot on that the idea of using native soils specific to the site are ideal construction media, especially those that can be cheaply manipulated into becoming near-perfect growing media.

As for your green/construction committee example - since when is ignorance of the audience in interpreting the data bullying? The data is there, and I'm even taught in my turf class (must have replaced deductive reasoning) that the USGA method is but one way to construct a green and is a constantly developing method from which MUCH LEARNING IS DERIVED. I sat in two classes within a week that explored the negatives to the so-called perched water table and the critical water capacity to broach the drainage with and without the choker layer.

Back to my point about the style of writing, though, it is in making these sorts of rhetorical jumps about bullying and the availability of data that the article seem to do more harm then good. Am I to fear the USGA will bully me or perhaps see them as a resource among many from which to make an informed decision? Where does the article cite other research or other avenues of exploration apart from his own method near the end - oh, and to borrow from his own style of argument - isn't he a consultant?

The USGA method does have it's positives. It provides a constant, controlled environment on which golf turf can be maintained. We know the factors involved and the materials involved and can therefore make conclusions based on that data. Whether or not this is best for the site/course is up to the decision makers.

Educate - don't intimidate.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,
I have always enjoyed your comments and your interleck....if you were asked to find a more efficient way to drain a bath tub...how would you do it? Doesn't matter what you have in that tub..just get the water out in a very efficient and DEPENDABLE method....

Three stout men: Flip it over.

[Don_Mahaffey]

He's right about just about everything except where he says Dr. Mike has been the lone voice against the use of USGA greens. Plenty of architects and supers will tell you they prefer a more soil type growing medium and plenty have acted on their preferences. 

Just like his comments about hand finishing bunkers. Like no one does that anymore when in fact quite a few guys hand finish bunkers. Every bunker at Wolf Point was hand finished and I know when I was working with Devries his comment to me was all the bunkers we were going to build were going to be hand finished. Who cares if it's done by an Italian grape hoe, French potato digger or good ole US shovel.

But, back to USGA greens. I'll give one example where they are not needed yet still used all the time. Ultradwarf grasses are very small plants, small everywhere including roots. With a turf like champion bermuda you will never grow deep roots and if you try and grow champion on USGA you'll be pulling your hair out because of the lack of nutrient and water holding capacity in the top 4 inches of the rootzone. It's one of the reasons ultradwarfs do so well in a no till conversion into an older green that has built up organics in the top layers of the greens mix. The plant actually has some help instead of being planted into a medium that is the opposite of almost everything it needs like when it's planted into a new USGA green. The comment I like best was that each greens construction should be tailored and custom built for the environment your building in...The one size fits all USGA method has been criticized for decades because we all know one size does not fit all. People have been amending and changing the USGA method for years...this is nothing new at all.

As far as his high performance model, I mostly agree but would take it a few steps farther. Why core out? Why dig a hole in the ground and create a well? Why not scarify the subgrade and if you need to import material why not bring it in, shape the green and bleed it out? I don't see why we have to dig a hole and fill it back in. Second, why herringbone drainage? What if I don't want my greens to all drain the same? What if I only want drainage in the low areas where water collects but I want my elevated areas to hold a bit of water? My field observation is sub surface drains "pull" water out of the soil; there more than just gravity going on. I don't want to pull water out of my knobs, ridges, elevated areas. ..If we're talking one size fits all is bad then why is one size fit all drainage being recommended?

Best greens construction methods I know are tailored to water quality, grass type, soil type,...etc...and micro climate. If a green is built into a hill side where water is going to drain onto the greens surface, then I want smile drains at the top of the green and beefed up drainage wherever water will collect on the green. If I have a green built on a knob with great surface drainage all around, I may not need any pipe at all, or very little. I say if we're talking about saving $$$ on materials and labor then let’s put drains where the water is going to be a problem, not uniformly throughout because of some spec  or formula.

[Mike_Young]

Kyle,
I have always enjoyed your comments and your interleck....if you were asked to find a more efficient way to drain a bath tub...how would you do it? Doesn't matter what you have in that tub..just get the water out in a very efficient and DEPENDABLE method....

Three stout men: Flip it over.

Kyle...you are da man....
AND  BTW  intimidation has always been part of education

[Tom_Doak]

Bullied? Really? Will the architects who participate on this site, or any and all in general, please stand up and be counted if they've felt BULLIED by the USGA into using their construction method?

Kyle:

I'm standing up here.  Count me.

I am sure there are a lot of architects who have never dealt with this, because they are insecure about their knowledge of agronomy and only too happy to swallow the principles of USGA Green Construction hook, line and sinker.  Xeroxing the USGA Greens Construction specs and sticking them in your spec book relieves you of all future liability for problems with greens.  That's why everyone uses them ... not because architects think they are better.  Most architects wouldn't know "better" soil mechanics if it hit them in the ass.

On the other hand, I've built greens out of native soils lots of times, and been fine with it, but on more than one occasion I have been pressured to build USGA greens.  The one time I felt really "bullied" about it was at Sebonack.  The entire site is great sand and we were happy to build EVERYTHING ELSE just on top of the native sand.  But the superintendent [relying on his buddies the local USGA agronomists] and my co-designer insisted on USGA greens, and actually trucked sand from off-site to build them.  We spent close to $1 million more than we should have [remember, it's Hamptons prices] because nobody on site was secure enough to just build with good local materials.

Now, maybe they believed that we needed to build a USGA green because they wanted a perched water table.  Maybe.  But none of them could explain to me what is the benefit of a perched water table.  Can you?  And can you explain why so many old greens without perched water tables are just fine if not better?  Shinnecock is like a mile away, and their greens were built from the same native soils we would have used -- not good enough for you?

If I just came out and wrote what Armen did, all of the USGA guys would pile on me because I'm not an agronomist, I've never grown grass, etc.  And I haven't.  But here's the great thing -- Armen Suny IS an agronomist, and he was a superintendent for 15-20 years, and he was perfectly happy to take his construction methods and build his greens and then maintain them in perfect condition for years afterward.  So you are going to have a hard time tearing him a new one.

Armen does skip over a few things in his piece, such as, the cost of his construction method is not free, either.  But he makes his point, and that's what good writers do.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

"Now, maybe they believed that we needed to build a USGA green because they wanted a perched water table.  Maybe.  But none of them could explain to me what is the benefit of a perched water table.  Can you?  And can you explain why so many old greens without perched water tables are just fine if not better?  Shinnecock is like a mile away, and their greens were built from the same native soils we would have used -- not good enough for you?"

Sure. The benefit of the perched water table on the spec green is that we know the critical points where the green is saturated, will drain, and how much water the green can retain. Whether or not this is useful is up to the decision-makers, but that is a benefit.

Shinnecock is a mile away - and 70 years older. Which strains of turf have persisted at Shinnecock through that time? How are they adapted the to site-specific stresses of Shinnecock and how have the turf managers at Shinnecock through the years guided and influenced the selection process? What is the history of turf quality at Shinnecock and how has that changed through the years from the opening date of those greens to today? How have the advances and knowledge derived from USGA and other research helped Shinnecock get to where it is today?

Wait, am I saying that there are more variables to turf quality than you, Armen, Mike and anyone else on this thread so far is saying?

YOU BET!

*edit* Sorry Don, didn't see you come in there.... seems like you're saying there are a number of variables, too.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Kyle,
Yes, there are variables but basically I'm in agreement with Mr. Suny, especially about the "sterile" environment. USGA greens just lead to so much extra cost including maintenance costs. By their very design you have to use more water than the plant needs, because you've got a water table formed between the sand and gravel that you have to break before you actually drain. Not to mention you may not have enough organics or "life" in the sand to break down harmful compounds (I believe this problem is overstated by environmental activists). So now you have to devise all sorts of catchment deals...and on and on. As far as fertility the USGA method has driven a hydroponic approach to fertility where we view the sand as nothing more than a plant anchor. No longer a soil we feed which in turn feeds the plant, no now we have to apply all sorts of specialty products that are "plant available" instead of letting nature do what she does a whole lot better than we can. So, more water, more specialty fertility, more environmental problems...

[Tom_Doak]

Kyle:

Our USGA agronomists were very insistent about a number of things.

I do not see your explanation of the merits of a perched water table as a "benefit".  Indeed, I now think less of them, because it just occurred to me that having a system where you keep the green near saturation point, is probably one reason so many courses are overwatered.

And, I think that Armen is also saying there are a lot of variables to turf quality, and the one-size-fits-all approach of USGA construction is just not the best solution to all those variables.  I would not go so far as him as to say that it is NEVER appropriate, but I would make somebody justify to me why spending an extra $300,000 to $500,000 on the USGA method is the thing to do in a given situation.  And so far, you would not have convinced me to part with my money.

[Kyle Harris]

Now that we've reached the point of violent agreement. I'll re-state that my argument is about the article's rhetoric and not the underlying point.

We/They arguments won't get any of us anywhere.

[BCrosby]

Why isn't this debate more public? Or did I miss it?

Very few developers know that there are serious, deep disagreements about USGA specs. They assume the specs are inscribed in stone tablets never to be questioned.

This debate needs to be publicly aired with back and forths from competent people on both sides of the issue. Real world people need to know that USGA specs are not a settled matter.

Bob

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()