[Tom Bacsanyi]

If you want me to be really pedantic, it is not a specification, it is a recommendation.

People treating it as a specification has made everyone scared of veering from its parameters and experimenting with what might be ideal for each individual site.

In theory, an ideal greens mix could be different for each of the 18 greens on one course.

Agreed, I think there's a lot of innovation being stifled by the USGA standard.  None of the "deciders" want to be the guy that got cute with the greens construction and have them go bad.  I could also see a lot of benefit to changing the drainage material depth from green to green.  For example, a high treeless plateau green vs. a green in a hollow with trees all around. 

[mike_malone]

Jim,
Great topic! I fear I know why you ask this question.

Is it likely that classic courses have a strong resistance to changing the original green contours? So it is only in extraordinary circumstances that USGA greens are proposed.So the benefits of the change need to far outweigh the costs. Who would risk such a suggestion?
Think about efforts to remove trees from classic courses. It was a steep uphill effort until more classic courses acted. Any rational human being knew the trees were wrong but it still was a major struggle. Greens stir much more emotion.

I might suggest looking at courses close by that aren't classic but have had good luck with USGA greens. In your area I think of Glen Mills as a shining example.

[corey miller]

How much would it cost on a per hole basis to do the mapping and building of a USGA spec green? 

How much does it cost to build and original green to USGA specs?

[Patrick_Mucci]

How much would it cost on a per hole basis to do the mapping and building of a USGA spec green? 

How much does it cost to build and original green to USGA specs?

Corey,

I have the figures, but they're in 1991 dollars and probably irrelevant today.

[Sean_A]

Other than Alwoodley, the only other classic course I know in England that went to USGA spec is Edgbaston.  Its been a few years now since the work, but the last time I played there it did seem as if the greens were starting to come round.  The course doesn't drain well so I can understand why they would want USGA greens - its gets old quick playing on temps on and off for 4-5 months a year.  Its a situation I wouldn't put up with and would never join a club which temps.  

I also know of a newer course which switched and their greens showed a huge improvement.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

USGA spec has probably changed twenty times since the first one was published. I still use the 1987 one if I want the purest and less risk. I still respect the D-values though some people have never even heard of it and hardly anyone seems to bother with diameter relationships in the sub structures.  Most important is the mix itself and that it conforms to reasonable percolation rates. Using local soils is almost impossible in the UK if you go inland and incorporating even 10% into the mix could be enough to **** it.

Costs depend on how many you are doing but in a sequence of 18 I reckon in most parts of the UK I can do 9000 squared metres of greens for £250-300,000. So from about £14000 per green. Dropping out the shingle layer probably saves £2000 per green.

Current ones we are building we are not bothering with rafts at all.

[Josh Stevens]

I suppose the impolite question is why the USGA feels qualified or entitled to be dictating green specs.  Is this not a bit beyond their remit?  What on earth are trying to achieve?

I have no idea what any of it means, but on a cursory inspection it would seem that a requirement for all those different layers would suggest that greens at ground level would be hard to achieve - everything has to be popped up to allow for that those drainage bits and bobs.  OR do I misunderstand?  But it would seem that some of the more interesting greens I have ever played were not USGA spec

[Patrick_Mucci]

I suppose the impolite question is why the USGA feels qualified or entitled to be dictating green specs. 


The USGA isn't dictating anything to anyone.

Their research has led them to believe that the green specs they recommend will provide for greens that perform as intended.


Is this not a bit beyond their remit? 

NO

What on earth are trying to achieve?

See above

I have no idea what any of it means, but on a cursory inspection it would seem that a requirement for all those different layers would suggest that greens at ground level would be hard to achieve - everything has to be popped up to allow for that those drainage bits and bobs. 
Not necessarily, but isn't what the ODG's intended with their push-ups ?

Gravity works wonders with drainage

OR do I misunderstand? 



Yes, you misunderstand

But it would seem that some of the more interesting greens I have ever played were not USGA spec

That's quite likely and most likely related to the date the greens were built

[Josh Stevens]

Patrick
you and I really need to play golf some time and hit each other with 5 irons.

[Lyndell Young]

IMHO back in the day Classic courses had large contours that aided in surface drainage. Today with greens 11-13 on the stimp  force the designer into  less contour to be playable. flater greens means less runoff of rainfall so more internal drainage is needed. give me a perched up green with contour anyday ,usga greens drainage systems fail over time as organic matter increases.. On a sidenote the new ultradwarf greens are so tight that subsurface drainage is less of an issue. 

[Josh Stevens]

So someone said a USGA green has a life of only a few decades, is that a result of organic build up?

So tell me, where are the oldest greens in the world do you think, that have not  been dug down to their roots and replaced?  I am presuming some sandy links  somewhere?

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean's comment about Edgbaston not draining well being the reason raises the paradox in this argument. If a course is closed for more than a few hours it is in my experience almost always the fairways being too wet leading to this. It is rarely the case that it is the greens being waterlogged shutting the course for any length of time. So logic would dictate improving the drainage in the fairways which would also help a bit with green drainage and make the whole course more homogenous. By doing the greens it just increases the difference between the two areas.

Josh,

the USGA are not dictating anything to anyone it is just recommending. It is the GCA and construction industry that is at fault if anyone really is to blame.

As for your other point a USGA green is built with sterile material and is generally kept that way with all the herbicides, insecticides and fungicides sprayed to maintain them. Without a good biological community in the rootzone they go stale over time. A natural sandy loam is not sterile.

Jon

[Adrian_Stiff]

Also. It is the USGA greens section. They merely give advice on their research and studies. In the UK we have the STRI (sports turf and research institute).

The real truth is probably everyone builds greens very slightly different to everyone else and calls them USGA.

[Mark_Fine]

There is of course lots of debate when it comes to rebuilding the greens of classic courses (especially the great ones). It is usually a "last resort" to rebuild a great classic green and if one is rebuilt the preference would be to match it agronomicly to the others.  If a super has 17 push up greens and one USGA green he almost always has to manage them differently. 

Out at Cherry Hills for example, after much consternation, we came up with the idea of relocating the #8 green.  The line of play had already been altered over the years and the green was sited in an area with lots of congestion.  Moving it allowed the green to be reoriented properly as well as adding about 50 yards or more of length to the hole.  It also allowed new back tees to be added to #9 and #16!  We decided, the benefits of moving the #8 green out weighted the concern we had about having to rebuild it.  We presented this in our Master Plan to the club and they agreed as did Tom Doak whose team did the construction.  I do not know if they rebuilt #8 as a USGA green or not?  Having worked with Mike Burke (the super out there for three years) I doubt it but Tom could comment?  We also recommended rebuilding the #3 and #13 greens (these had already been rebuilt in years past and were not original Flynn greens so they were not as sacred and frankly needed to be changed as part of the restoration work.  Again Tom could comment on how they were rebuilt.

[Thomas Dai]

The other thing that surprises me with Alwoodley is they have a set of greens that have functioned fine summer and winter for 80 od years but decide to replace them with greens that are expected to fail as early as 25 years. I just do not understand the logic
Jon

This replacement after 25 yrs seems to me to be pretty key.

I been told a ballpark figure of around £30k per green to build a USGA spec green in the UK. That's an awful lot of ££ for a UK club when there's usually 18 of them plus a putting green and a chipping green as well and they'll all need replacing after 25 yrs.

atb

[Adrian_Stiff]

Thomas - Probably is 30K if you are just doing one.....in a run of 18 I reckon I can do them for £14,000 each

[Thomas Dai]

Thomas - Probably is 30K if you are just doing one.....in a run of 18 I reckon I can do them for £14,000 each

Thanks Adrian. £252k for 18-holes (plus more if also doing same spec for putting & chipping greens).

Would there be additional maintenance costs associated with having USGA spec greens in the UK? That is additional maintenance costs over those you'd incur with historic clay-bowl type greens.

I appreciate that having them all USGA spec may result in greater opening/playability and thus revenue as an offset to any extra costs but I'm particularly thinking here of just private member clubs (rather than pay-n-play course or combination of member and p-n-p).

atb

[Sean_A]

Sean's comment about Edgbaston not draining well being the reason raises the paradox in this argument. If a course is closed for more than a few hours it is in my experience almost always the fairways being too wet leading to this. It is rarely the case that it is the greens being waterlogged shutting the course for any length of time. So logic would dictate improving the drainage in the fairways which would also help a bit with green drainage and make the whole course more homogenous. By doing the greens it just increases the difference between the two areas.

Jon

Jon

While its not ideal, it is better to at least be putting on decent greens even if the fairways are a bit soggy.  I know I often push my ball to the wings in winter anyway just to help the fairways out a bit - so the issue is even less of a worry.  I am not sure what Edgbaston can do to drain the fairways enough to make a difference without spending  ton of dough.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

whilst I agree with you about putting surfaces that was not what I was pointing out in my post.

Jon

[David Davis]

The angle I'm most interested in is how many classic courses with sand based turf have converted over and what were the results of this?

More specifically links courses but not limited to by any means. I've brought this up before but it is certainly appropriate for this discussion. I can certainly imagine converting over on clay based ground although I really doubt you can maintain the distinctive character of green subtleties that make some of these classic greens special. Close sure but I doubt you can emulate 50-100 years of contours refined by the hand of nature.

[Jon Wiggett]

The angle I'm most interested in is how many classic courses with sand based turf have converted over and what were the results of this?

More specifically links courses but not limited to by any means. I've brought this up before but it is certainly appropriate for this discussion. I can certainly imagine converting over on clay based ground although I really doubt you can maintain the distinctive character of green subtleties that make some of these classic greens special. Close sure but I doubt you can emulate 50-100 years of contours refined by the hand of nature.

David,

if you are a links course and therefor have sand based greens you would have to be criminally stupid to consider USGA specs which would be a down grade.

Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

The angle I'm most interested in is how many classic courses with sand based turf have converted over and what were the results of this?

More specifically links courses but not limited to by any means. I've brought this up before but it is certainly appropriate for this discussion. I can certainly imagine converting over on clay based ground although I really doubt you can maintain the distinctive character of green subtleties that make some of these classic greens special. Close sure but I doubt you can emulate 50-100 years of contours refined by the hand of nature.

David,

if you are a links course and therefor have sand based greens you would have to be criminally stupid to consider USGA specs which would be a down grade.

Jon

I'm trying to recall which courses but I think there are quite a few links that have reconstructed their greens using approximate USGA recommendation profile... Maybe someone else can chime in?

[David Davis]

The angle I'm most interested in is how many classic courses with sand based turf have converted over and what were the results of this?

More specifically links courses but not limited to by any means. I've brought this up before but it is certainly appropriate for this discussion. I can certainly imagine converting over on clay based ground although I really doubt you can maintain the distinctive character of green subtleties that make some of these classic greens special. Close sure but I doubt you can emulate 50-100 years of contours refined by the hand of nature.

Jon,

I love this response...

I have some strong candidates for you that fit this exact profile. 

...and if I threw in sub-air unit wishes to top it all off? Would that move them from criminally stupid to some higher distinction?

Does this surprise you?

David

David,

if you are a links course and therefor have sand based greens you would have to be criminally stupid to consider USGA specs which would be a down grade.

Jon

[Steve Okula]

If you want me to be really pedantic, it is not a specification, it is a recommendation.

People treating it as a specification has made everyone scared of veering from its parameters and experimenting with what might be ideal for each individual site.

In theory, an ideal greens mix could be different for each of the 18 greens on one course.

Yes, thank you.

If you read the USGA Greens Section web site carefully they always refer to the greens construction method as a recommendation, never a specification.

I've met first time golf developers who could not be convinced that a green could function just fine even if it were not exactly to USGA guidelines. (Which truly would be impossible because the recommendation is a series of parameters, not a precise specification.)

It causes a lot of unnecessary anguish and grief and time and expense in places in the world where you can't get sand seived to spec or spaghnum peat moss is not readily available.

What's more, some people don't understand the physical mechanics involved or the difference between a tolerance and a requirement. For example, the USGA say that drainage gravel should have no more than 2% fines, I had one owner refuse a gravel with <1% because it "didn't have enough fines in it". 

Stupid people. How do they get so much money?

[Sean_A]

Sean,

whilst I agree with you about putting surfaces that was not what I was pointing out in my post.

Jon

Jon

Do tell.  I thought you were suggesting its a waste of time to have decent greens and wet fairways. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()