Don,
All good points, and of course, the USGA green section was trying to find a way to build greens in the vast majority of cases in the US where those conditions don't exist. As has been noted, in a country as climatologically and agronomically varied as the US of A, they (and supers and architects) have found that one size fits all hasn't worked. Overall, however, the USGA method has worked well for a lot of people.
From memory, I think there was also hope, based on the properties of sand, that they would never wear out and would never need aerification, since sand theoretically doesn't compact, neither of which has proven true in all cases. I think that other elements - wind and shoe born native soils (like silts and clays), irrigation borne contaminents and thatch can affect the greens makeup over time and must be removed through heavy aerification, and in many cases, eventually removed through rebuilding.
Certainly, it varies everywhere from never needs rebuilding (the original goal) and as little as 15 years. Also, the USGA has found that most greens probably need to be re-turfed every 15 years or so, due to contamination, newer varieties being desired, etc. although this might not require rebuilding all or any of the soilt structure.
Ryan,
As Don suggests, others could probably tell you more about whether the Oakmont greens have never had any modifications, but I suspect your premise and "exception" is probably wrong in a technical sense.
In the vast majority of courses with push up greens that I have seen, the green base has been modified over the years by core aerifying, with core removal and replacement with sand in the holes. With enough aerifications every year, eventually, every sq. in. of green gets a sand core, and together with heavy topdressing, gets a gradually increased sand content, and the ability to claim that the original greens have never been rebuilt. Of course, they don't do it to claim the greens are original, they do it because they don't want the course out of play, or as you suggest, to spend the $30K.
If you read any of my posts carefully, you actually already have the answers to your other questions, but I fail to read an answer to mine. On what do you base your opinion of "comedic" nature of the ASGCA list or your new assertion of "questionable" life spans, other than your belief in conspiracies?
I did allow that yes, there is a function of selling the need to remodel in that document. That doesn't mean it isn't true, or that superintendents don't fight a very real battle of being asked to provide ever higher condtions with basically non existent infrastructure as tools. Instead of providing the tools, they simply fire the super, figuring he isn't any good, when that is not the case. We are not trying to manufacture remodeling business where it isn't necessary, we are trying to increase awareness of what we see in the field on a repeated bases.
Moreover, when we go to clubs, we are painfully aware that most will do anything to avoid spending $30K (which is actually too conservative in todays dollars) to rebuild greens if they don't have to. They just can't afford it. If this document does cause someone to reconsider, it is probably helping them make the right decision 99% of the time. In other cases, it surely is a value judgement on the parts of the course, but this information should be figured in.
In that document, ASGCA stresses that it might be better to spend a little over time to avoid having to rebuild an entire course. While I believe that having an architect on board to consult on even rebuilding cart paths - why not put them in the best locations if you are rebuilding them anyway because of breakage - on many, many of these small, non-design changes, an architect is not technically required, and often not used.
BTW, the USGA reps I have seen in the field also try to find ways to avoid rebuilding completely to USGA specs, if at all possible. But, if rebuilding is necessary based on soil tests, etc. you can bet they do push the extra cost of USGA over California greens. But, after investing millions in research, I think we can give them credit for truly believing in their method - and their revised specs in 2004 do allow for wider latitude - basically getting away from the one size fits all, at least to a degree.
We do discuss with our clients a lot of non-design operational issues, and usually do touch on the fact that golf courses often do need to be rebuilt over time. Granted, its not the biggest topic of discussion, but we do stress that they will be making small improvements to things missed in construction - new drainage areas seem to pop up all the time, for example. drainage is an ongoing battle for superintendents. And no, our contracts do NOT have any stipulation that we will be back at any time to redo the course.
JN tried to get that in his early contracts, but I think after time, the Owners simply refused it. After all, a housing developer knows he probably won't own the course in 15 years, so how can he sign such a contract?
So, basically, I (and I suspect the rest of the ASGCA and USGA, but I can check and get back to you if you like) kind of resent the tone of your comments, because they are just so far off base as to be "comedic."
When Tom Marzolf put that list together, he drew on his experience of literally hundreds of his own courses, and polled several other architects to get their collective experiences, so literally, its based on consulting at thousands of golf courses of nearly every description. Of course, its an "average" and individual courses may vary, but the idea that those built elements of the golf course wear out - and generally that the more you cut corners up front the faster they do wear out - is as true as can be overall.
Once again, how many courses have you been responsible for the design, maintenance, or infrastrcture for to form your opinion and then publicly cast dispersions on the efforts of many hundreds of professional gcas, agronomists and superintendents?