[Ian Larson]

If it is the architects place to determine what and how the greens are to be constructed then he needs to be liable for the future performance or lack their of and sign off on it to be legally contracted. An architect builds a course, gets his check and moves on with little to nothing to do with the day to day issues of the green keeper growing grass in droughts and deluges. Who's ass is it when problems occur with greens?

Ian, I don't see how you can blame an architect for choosing a construction method when the supers and agronomists can't even agree on the "science".

Ryan,
I meant to respond to Ian earlier re this....
I call BS on his entire statement.....for those of us that build and leave an no control over some owner hiring an incompetent supt.  You have a lot on the line as an architect....I had one owner who kept the same supt for 10 years..he sprayed beer and pepsi on his greens every monday and told the owner the greens had no drainage....and the owner was so protective of the guy because he had been at his private club in ATL as the guy in charge of flower beds...so could not argue.....greens would die every year.....we would get the blame and it continued for 10 years....when the owner finally had to ask me an opinion after the supt left....I showed him 18 green outlets that had been sealed/covered/stopped up and other things.....when we opened them up the water that escaped was unbearable smell wise.....greens were fine in two weeks....
So don't give me that crap about the archie going on down the road...this business is like all others ..the guy who has the boss's ear the most will always rule in most cases....and sadly that is often someone that has no clue....

.....and you're using the example of the super spraying beer and pepsi like that is the industry benchmark? ok...why do we even need superintendents?

[Tom_Doak]

Beer and pepsi is a left-field example.  Mike's dealt with some beauties over the years.

But, we all know a guy can lose grass pretty easily on a course that's been there for a long time.  I don't see how you could expect any architect to take responsibility for that.  Go back to blaming the weather.

[Mike_Young]

Ian,

Don't get so touchy
I am implying just the opposite....
Supts are the most critical person we have in this business once the product is turned over....so you need to be sure you have a good one....
So my philosophy has always been to hire the best supt I can afford....he will make it work...an idiot as I described will not allow any green to work....
Let me ask re greens construction....would you prefer to have the greens Armen describes and an extra $30,000 a year in salary vs.  USGA greens and no increase in salary?  

Note: he should have sprayed Coke not Pepsi

[Jon Wiggett]

Open question,

if you need USGA specs to keep the grass on the greens in top condition then how can you keep the tees, fairways, etc. in top nick when they are not USGA specs?

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:

The tees and fairways are not stressed to within 1/10th of an inch of their life, as the greens are.  Though more and more clubs are trying to stress out the rest of the course, too.

[Ian Larson]

Mike,

I'm at the Hard Rock in Vegas so here's my quick response.....

I would choose Armen's green method but wouldn't take the 30K for my salary I would take 30K towards my budget with the extra soil penetrant being sprayed along with constant deep needle tining. If it was a course in SoCal the expectations would have to be low when I would be forced to flush greens for salts with a couple hours of water. If its a northeastern course with constant rains don't expect the greens to be drained and firmed back up as quick as others in the neighborhood. Armen's design calls for the water to move downwards and then laterally to the lines. The lack of the gravel layer means water is ALWAYS in the rootzone, especially at the bottom. The USGA gravel calls for water to only move down 12" and its done and gone out of the rootzone.  


Jon,

It doesn't take USGA spec greens to maintain decent turf. And we all know that greens are much different than fairways on so many levels.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,

are greens really 'stressed with in 1/10th of an inch of their life'. This is something that is said by many people but if you really were to do it then you green will die in the long run. If you stress your grass as much as you claim then you could argue you have either the wrong type of grass or the wrong management program.

Ian,

it depends on where you are and what you have. Tell me what is the difference between your fairways at say 12mm and greens at 6mm from a management/stress level if both are on the same rootzone?

I am not saying that it is true in all cases, but the one size fits all route of USGA is also not always usable and mostly not the best option but maybe the safest as it will finction to a certain standard almost everywhere.

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Within  a tenth of an inch of their life is true: Greens are always the quickest just before they DIE

Greens built with native sand or soils are much easier to grow in than USGA greens.

It is very difficult to duplicate the micronutrients that are present in native soils, which are beneficial to the grass plant.

The intent of the USGA coming out with a greens specification back in 1960 or so was the right thing to do at the time, it set a bit of a guideline to follow.

If I am lucky enough to get a sandy site to build on, I would never build a USGA green. It is easy to talk the owner out of spending the extra money for USGA

[Michael Rossi]

To say that one is construction style is better than the other is pretty closed minded. Depending on the location and what the environmental conditions dictate would steer my decision.

If the greens needed to be flushed regularly I would prefer the USGA style, otherwise I would go with the native sand. Providing the native sand looked decent after testing and the available water for irrigation wouldn't cause and foreseeable issues.

[Bradley Anderson]

To say that one is construction style is better than the other is pretty closed minded. Depending on the location and what the environmental conditions dictate would steer my decision.

If the greens needed to be flushed regularly I would prefer the USGA style, otherwise I would go with the native sand. Providing the native sand looked decent after testing and the available water for irrigation wouldn't cause and foreseeable issues.

Thats right....its all about testing what you have on site or nearby, and then coming up with the right organic amendment that will not choke your pore spaces and interfere with your percolation. The USGA has always advocated that. And the USGA changed their specs to eliminate the chocker layer, by using a birds eye gravel in lieu of the pea gravel. Honestly, I don't understand why so many here are breaking bad on the USGA. 

[Bradley Anderson]

I would like to hear from those who advocate building greens that are not USGA spec.

Do you test the gradients of the soils that you are using to build your greens?

Do you strive for consistency of soil gradients on all of the greens?

How do you determine the depth of the soil that goes on the green? Does the hydrology of your growing medium have any influence on your depths?

How do you determine if organic amendments may or may not be required to add to your greens growing medium?

If organic amendments are required, what is your testing method for determining if the material is approriate? How do you dtermine the percentages of the organic amendment?

I'm not try to be a prick about this - I genuinely want to learn how you figure all of this important stuff out. I'm just kicking the tires here. 

[Tom_Doak]

I would like to hear from those who advocate building greens that are not USGA spec.
  Bradley, my answers below.

Do you test the gradients of the soils that you are using to build your greens?
   Of course.

Do you strive for consistency of soil gradients on all of the greens?
   We test for it, but if it's "close enough" naturally, we would prefer to use the soil in situ, instead of trucking 6000 tons of materials back and forth across the site.  [Yes, that's how much greens materials on a typical course.]

How do you determine the depth of the soil that goes on the green? Does the hydrology of your growing medium have any influence on your depths?

How do you determine if organic amendments may or may not be required to add to your greens growing medium?

If organic amendments are required, what is your testing method for determining if the material is approriate? How do you dtermine the percentages of the organic amendment?
   The answer to all of the above questions is to leave the decision to a consulting agronomist in consultation with the golf course superintendent.  That is well beyond anything I know about.

I'm not try to be a prick about this - I genuinely want to learn how you figure all of this important stuff out. I'm just kicking the tires here. 

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. Doak,

Thanks for answering the questions. I don't want to put you on the spot here, but could you tell us who does your testing? I think that is an important thing for people to understand here, because the thing is: the guys who do that testing for you are probably following specs that the USGA helped us arrive at for growing quality putting green turf.

[Jeff_Mingay]

[/quote]

I think it'd be constructive to discuss Sagebrush and those variables, if you're willing and able, Jeff.

Are the greens designed for surface drainage? What sort of soils are used for the growing medium? What is the fertility program? What disease pressures are present?

What sort of climatological data is available?
[/quote]

Kyle,

Of course the greens at Sagebrush are designed to surface drain. An imported sand, amended with some "stuff", is the growing medium. And, I'm not sure about the fertility program or disease pressures. I do know that Sagebrush is located in a desert, where it can get very hot during the summer and it doesn't rain very often.

[Tom_Doak]

Mr. Doak,

Thanks for answering the questions. I don't want to put you on the spot here, but could you tell us who does your testing? I think that is an important thing for people to understand here, because the thing is: the guys who do that testing for you are probably following specs that the USGA helped us arrive at for growing quality putting green turf.

Bradley:

That might be.  Three of the four agronomists I've used over the years are in the business of testing soils for USGA greens materials.

Nonetheless, all four of them have told me that if they were building greens with their own money, they would skip the expense of the USGA profile and just build the greens out of a good sandy loam material.  So I won't identify them, because I don't want to endanger their business of testing materials for the USGA method.

And surely you don't mean to imply that no one knew how to build a green or had done any research until the USGA specs came out in the 1960's, do you?  Old Tom Morris had the basics down pretty well.  Do you want me to summon Melvyn?

[Mike_Young]

Mr. Doak whatever you do, please don't put Melvyn on me please don't

[Jon Wiggett]

I would like to hear from those who advocate building greens that are not USGA spec.
Bradley,
I am not against USGA specs per se but feel they are, looked at broadly, a one size fits all method. They will function everywhere but are more often than not not the best possible build for the location. What is important are the percolation rates and particle shapes. The German FLL specs offer a very good alternative to the USGA ones

Do you test the gradients of the soils that you are using to build your greens?

Usually yes

Do you strive for consistency of soil gradients on all of the greens?

Certainly not from site to site. On the same site it might be considered desirable but as the micro-climate of a green location will affect the soil to a certain extent so it will affect the rootzone (imported or not) in the long term. I think there is too much talked about having all the greens playing the same as it is a purely academical question. A green on an open field, on top of a hill exposed to the wind is always going to be drier than one surrounded by trees, in shade all day next to water. No specs or maintenance is going to change that. The golfer however should be able to see the situation and compensate to a degree for it

How do you determine the depth of the soil that goes on the green? Does the hydrology of your growing medium have any influence on your depths?

Depends on the grass. If it is shallow rooting then probably it is more to do with cutting the cup. I have had greens which had areas with only 2" or 3" of soil on top of bedrock which grew perfectly good swards for putting on though no good for cutting holes. If the grass is deep rooting then the rootzone can be as deep as you want or can afford it.

How do you determine if organic amendments may or may not be required to add to your greens growing medium?

perculation rates, basically if it drains well enough and particle shapes are okay then as far as I am concerned, you cant end up with to much humus content.

If organic amendments are required, what is your testing method for determining if the material is approriate? If it meets perculation rates, etc. and is the same native soil as in your surrounds/fairways then it should be okay for the greens How do you dtermine the percentages of the organic amendment?you already asked this question

I'm not try to be a prick about this - I genuinely want to learn how you figure all of this important stuff out. I'm just kicking the tires here. 

Bradley, there will be alot of people who will rant at what I have just said and I will be the first to admit that it can go horribly wrong if you get it wrong. USGA will always work to a fixed standard with the right resources and knowledge BUT if you are looking at the question 'what is the optimal build for a particular site' USGA will very rarely be that choice. It will however always be the safest which is why it gets chosen so often

[Tim Nugent]

I always love these USGA - or NOT discussions.  Here's some insight (random musings) from an arch's point of view.

1st off, I'm not an advocate of any one type of greens construction.  My father was on the USGA Green Sectioin committee for a long time.  He knew Marvin Ferguson and told me that it was his (USGA's) desire to develop a spec that could be REPLICATED anywhere.  This doesn't meant that it was the BEST, only that it could be Replicated.  Marvin said it would be advantageous to have a soil component (yes I know "soil" includes sand - I took soil mechanics in Engineering School) but native soils are inherently varialbe and hence not able to be Replicated.

The reason they eliminated the Choker layer was basically because it was a huge pain in the ass and expensive.  A case of something that looked good in the lab but hard to construct in the field.  It was conceived as a ay to keep the finer greens mix sands from filtering down into the pea stone and corrupting the mechanism for creating the perched water table.  To create the perched water table, the particle diameters of the two layers should be different by at least a factor of 7x's, otherwise the molecular bond holding the water around the smaller particle will be broken (Think capillary attraction of water above the rim of a glass).  
Therefore, a better Practical solution was make the pea stone small enough to prevent sand migration but still large enough to fulfill the above requirements.

Supers tend to like to be comfortable with what they are getting.  If all they have ever knon was USGA, then chances are that is what they are going to want. Afterall, it's not their nmickel but it is their ass if the grass dies.

An architect should put the super in a position to succeed.  

An architect many times will not know who is going to be the super at the time of design or even construction.

Nor know who will be the super 10 yrs out.

Nor what will be used as topdressing sand.

I try to find a sand that will work for both greens and bunker construction because a lot of bunker sand gets thrown onto the greens.

A cup is easier to cut in a sand green than a soil one and if the soil is too hard, the plug can break upon extraction - another pain in the ass situation.  So the green should be at east 9" of sand.

Usga greens seem to require less hand watering.

It's harder to modify a green's contours if it is USGA.

The "layer cake" building requirements make it harder to blend the putting surface into the surrounding area. Also, there is less flexibilty to do final field adjustments to the green.

Sand is inert. not sterile.

Inside/outside irrigation should be employed if the greens medium is different than that of the surrounds.

Sounds like "High-Performance" is just a re-branded California Method.

It's hard to dry-up a USGA green in humis/rainy periods.  Hot/humid with rain every 3rd day is problematic.

I find the phyisics of a perched water table work better on flat greens.  (There was a nice study published a few yrs back in GCM about how slopes and undulations affected was flow in USGA,CAl, and Native push-ups).  Probably a reason why proponents of big, undulating greens do not favor the USGA method.

Architects don't want to have to spend more money on lawyers than they got in fees, defending their spec if a super kills a green (not saying with is at fault).  Since there is a large population of successful USGA greens out there, and the science of the USGA supporting it, it's a means of insurance against such litigation.

Fert and ammendments can leach through a Sand green faster than a soil green and not get "bound-up" along the way.  Tile lines that discharge directly into a body of water can change the composition of that water.

Like all things, one should have a fairly open view - there isn't a One Best Way  -  depending on the circumstances, I've done it 5 or 6 different ways. And guess what, they all worked and all still are in play today.  It's understandable for those with a scientific mentality to want a data derived formula method and those who are of the opinion that it's as much as an art as it is a science to be willing to work with something a little less empirical.  It also depends on what the expectations of those who are writing the check are.  Are they stringent or will they live with some variation?

[Josh_Mahar]

Tim"s musings are spot on!

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

One point to add:

When I walked into the office today, I had the USGA Green Construction specs on my desk to review, for a club where we are rebuilding 18 greens this summer [after someone else's 18 USGA greens failed].

The only reason we are going with USGA greens at this club is because to do anything else, I would have to explain the science of it all to 500 club members who don't understand the subject at all.  That would be a hopeless lost cause, even at a club where the USGA greens just failed.

[Ian Larson]

USGA greens do not fail. The human beings that decide to go with the wrong size and shape of sand and gravel to save money fail. It's also the human beings that don't manage water and thatch accumulation correctly that fail. Sand on top of gravel in itself does not fail. And these failings are just as present on push-up greens.

[Mike_Young]

USGA greens do not fail. The human beings that decide to go with the wrong size and shape of sand and gravel to save money fail. It's also the human beings that don't manage water and thatch accumulation correctly that fail. Sand on top of gravel in itself does not fail. And these failings are just as present on push-up greens.

Ian,
We are just so fortunate that the USGA developed the USGA green specs (or do they call them recommendations )and not some group of human beings
Cheers

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, I'm sitting here scratching my head...isn't the definition of insanity "repeating the same actions and expecting different results"?
What was the cause of the failure? And what is being done to correct it? I mean, was it something physically wrong with the greens construction, environmental (siting, trees, water quality), wrong grass choice, cultural (or some combination thereof)?  

I feel for you on this one, it's a no winner.  I hope you put your misgivings in writing.  If the same results are achieved, at least you'ld be on record.  If, for some reason, all works out - no harm, no foul.

Explaining the science to 500 members would be an exercise in "eyes glazing over" (even if you wore a Blue Blazer w/a red, white and blue stripped tie)

Ian, if the wrong size/shape of the particles are used, doesn't that mean it ISN'T a USGA Green?  And, Yes, most of the time there is an issue with a USGA Green it is due to how it is maintained.  But, I have seen poor USGA Greens respond when the environmental issues causing their decline are corrected (ie. trees cut/thinned to allow more sunlight/air movement or the chemisty of the irrigation water modified).  One problem is that some people feel that a USGA Green is bullet-proof and it's not.  You still need proper siting (enough hours of sunlight) just as you would for any other construction method.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it's established why the greens failed in this case -- poor construction with improper materials -- but as you can imagine it is a huge political football at the club in question, with the previous administration blaming subsequent management for the mistakes.  [Amazingly, no one is blaming the architect or the contractor.]

So the club has us writing these ridiculously airtight specs against the next contractor -- we'll fine you if you harm a blade of grass ! -- which just means the rebuild will cost them more than it should.

If I really thought the USGA greens would fail again, there's no way I would be building them.  But if they DO fail, I guarantee it won't be because we didn't nail the specs.

[Incidentally, Ian, "sand on top of gravel in itself" CAN fail.  The problem here is that the greens mix was essentially fine gravel, and the superintendent couldn't topdress with that.  So he topdressed with sand, and eventually wound up with a perched water table in about two inches of sand on top of the "mix".]

[Tim Nugent]

Tom, you just hit a flaw in the USGA Green.  The acceptable particle size on the large end is larger than super's want for topdressing material because it can damage their mower reels and bed knifes, so the get a finer sand that will  dissapear when brushed in.  With finer and finer bladed grass being used and greens being mowed shorter and shorter(to a 10th of an inch of their lives ) players  don't want to be "putting over gravel", so it's only natural that finer topdressing will be sourced by the super.  And you just gave a real-world example of what can happen.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()