Why can't they get back to the basics ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I noitice, on almost every course I play, that the greens and tees aren't mowed to their footpads.  Why ?

This would seem to be the simplest of maintainance practices.
And, the cost of compliance is minimal.

The benefit is that many strategic hole locations would be recaptured on the greens and many tees would be broadened to their intended width.

Do the members not see it. ?
Does the green committee not see it ?
Does the Superintendent not see it ?

Why isn't this simplest of tasks fulfilled ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
The cost of compliance is surely less than the cost of trying to regain these areas, especially if they are left unmowed for too long.
I've watched our greens shrink for the past 23 years. In some cases we've lost 1/3 of the original surface, as supported by aerial photos from the '30s which George Bahto dug up when he was here doing work.
We just had a visit from Jim Baird in which he confirmed what our Super has been saying, that encroachment by other types of grasses has removed the possibility of bringing back our "lost" hole locations unless we choose to tear up and rebuild those areas.
It would have been much simpler to keep them mown in the first place and any additional cost associated with keeping them as greens would have been long forgotten about by now.

Ignorance, laziness and budgets are the main culprits. Culpability is spread across the board.    

[A_Clay_Man]

Pat, There's a school of thought that believes that reducing the size of the target makes the game more challenging. I disagree. The only thing, reducing the size of the target does, is stroke the egos of the supposed better player. Somewhere in this fundemental principle is a corollation with Jones/Mac's lack of fairway definition designed for ANGC. Can people see that?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, relating to your thoughts on mowing to the footpads on greens; do you mean like the greens are mowed at many of the courses we see from Australia during their tour season that we see broadcast?  

If so, I think that it has a lot to do with conventional wisdom that has grown up in the American superintendent's maintenance regime mindset.  The cost of time/labor to take extra time to mow up to a fall-in bunker.  Of course that is if the greenside bunker's are built as "fall-ins".  That is what many of the greenside bunkers are at Wild Horse.  And, in that isolated case, the super does indeed mow right up to the edge of them.  And, the design calls for the surrounds to be closely mown fescue.  So in that case, the concept of mowing to the footpads is sort of mitigated.

But, the modern conventional wisdom of design of the interface fringe between greens and surrounds (I think that is the term we can use as a substitute for "footpads"... isn't it?)  calls for ease of mowing first, and then the size and relative shape of the green and its interface fringe to surrounds is constricted by irrigation radius.   Finally, the bunker lips in most soil, turf variety, climate would be more subject to cave-ins where a greens mower travels to close to the edge of the bunker lip next to the green.  

As for the slopes to teeing grounds, I think the idea is to have a rough border that also absorbes and hems in so to speak the more intense irrigation and management of the turf on the teeing ground.  Also, an area for the mower to turn without chewing the closely mown teeing turf and making it look unsightly.  

[ian]

Pat,

If a super walks his greens, he is usually in a better position to recapture old green surface. If he rides them, often he doesn't want any part in recapturing "corners" or tight areas due to the wear it creates.

A lot of lost areas are related to drainage problems (particulary with non-draining hollows found on Travis courses), and the only way to recapture them is to drain the green (or that area) at the same time.

I don't think most members really notice that the greens are small, or are getting smaller, they only care that they are in good condition and putt true.

If it's reassuring for you, I have expanded about 100 greens this year alone. It is a long process to recapture green. The most important thing is to educate members about the process so that they can be patient waiting for the results.

[rgkeller]

It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the blame for substandard mowing patterns should not rest directly on the superintendent.

[Rick Baril]

Good issue Pat.
IMO it is a maintenance issue - either to reduce costs, avoid wear problems or simply lack of diligence (adhering to the intended maintenance lines).  You can also add bunker edges and fairway mow lines to the list.  I would also agree with Ian regarding drainage.  

Obviously, this is an issue of "fringe" areas.  This is particularly disconcerting on putting surfaces, where the "premium" pin placements reside.  

Over time there is a general "rounding" of all elements - especially greens and bunkers - and a straightening of fairway lines.  IMO because it is easier to guide maintenance equipment in a straight line or constant curve.  And, the mower operator (human nature) follows the easiest path.

You are right, this reduces the strategy of a golf course as well as the visual quality.  Ian makes a good point.  Once this occurs over a long period of time, it is difficult to "recapture" these areas - and, can lead to a costly and time consuming overhaul/renovation.

Many architects are now using a buried wire to define the perimeter of the putting surface.  This provides the super with an easy (and definitive) way to locate (with a metal detector) the original putting surface limit.
 
It is discouraging to see this evolution take place on so many golf courses.

My two cents....

[ian]

rgkeller,

"It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the blame for substandard mowing patterns should not rest directly on the superintendent."

The scenaro is called an insufficient budget. If you don't have the staff, you can not walk greens, or hand rake bunkers, the list goes on.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the blame for substandard mowing patterns should not rest directly on the superintendent.

RG-
  The superintendent answers, in many cases, to the General Manager, who answers to the President and Board.  In other cases, the super answers directly to the Green Committee chairman.  The Green Committee, with limited input from professional club management, sets the goals and objectives for the golf course; the super doesn't exist in a vacuum, with carte blanche in respect to the golf course and grounds.  The super is given goals and objectives for the golf course, and he must deliver.  

  Ian is correct, money seems to be the great equalizer.

  A good Green Committee will set clearly defined objectives for the golf course, while listening to their super and GM as professional resources, and sometimes also the professional opinion of a golf course architect. Several clubs I have managed do this; they retain a professional architect to come in yearly and make recommendations as to the golf course.  

  I wouldn't be so quick to make a knee-jerk statement without understanding the decisionmaking process and characters/actors involved.  The super is ultimately responsible for the execution to deliver a finished product, but he can theoretically only do what the green committee and sometimes GM permit him to do. If he does otherwise, then corrective action may need to be taken.

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

"It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the blame for substandard mowing patterns should not rest directly on the superintendent."

The scenaro is called an insufficient budget. If you don't have the staff, you can not walk greens, or hand rake bunkers, the list goes on.

So if a course has a green budget of seven figures and the greens get smaller every year, then the super should be fired posthaste?

[rgkeller]

It is difficult to imagine a scenario in which the blame for substandard mowing patterns should not rest directly on the superintendent.

RG-
  The superintendent answers, in many cases, to the General Manager, who answers to the President and Board.  In other cases, the super answers directly to the Green Committee chairman.  The Green Committee, with limited input from professional club management, sets the goals and objectives for the golf course; the super doesn't exist in a vacuum, with carte blanche in respect to the golf course and grounds.  The super is given goals and objectives for the golf course, and he must deliver.  

  Ian is correct, money seems to be the great equalizer.

  A good Green Committee will set clearly defined objectives for the golf course, while listening to their super and GM as professional resources, and sometimes also the professional opinion of a golf course architect. Several clubs I have managed do this; they retain a professional architect to come in yearly and make recommendations as to the golf course.  

  I wouldn't be so quick to make a knee-jerk statement without understanding the decisionmaking process and characters/actors involved.  The super is ultimately responsible for the execution to deliver a finished product, but he can theoretically only do what the green committee and sometimes GM permit him to do. If he does otherwise, then corrective action may need to be taken.

Do you know of any situation in which the General Manager, the Green Committee or the membership DEMANDED that the superintendent adjust mowing patterns to slowly diminish green sizes?

The problem is inattentive superintendents in the vast majority of cases.

[Joe Hancock]

Not all supers are so interested in architecture, nor are all pro's, GM's, etc. If there is a problem, wouldn't education play a role? Or, does one assume that because there is a lack of interest currently, that there never will be?

If a super is directed to expand greens because of architectural reasons, 9 times out of ten they will do it. If no one tells them, why would they care? Don't assume any golf industry person is an architectural afficienado.

Joe

[ian]

rgkeller,

You assume assigning blame for this is important.

Sometimes, as Joe put so well, things occur over a number of years because they are too small to be noticed. Golf courses are not static, they grow and change every day. That's where an outsider becomes helpful, because they are brought in to see the whole picture, and don't have to worry about the day to day details.

Why don't we concentrate on fixing things when we notice them, instead of worrying about who to blame.

[Doug Braunsdorf]

rgkeller,

You assume assigning blame for this is important.

Sometimes, as Joe put so well, things occur over a number of years because they are too small to be noticed. Golf courses are not static, they grow and change every day. That's where an outsider becomes helpful, because they are brought in to see the whole picture, and don't have to worry about the day to day details.

Why don't we concentrate on fixing things when we notice them, instead of worrying about who to blame.

Thanks, Ian.
Like I mentioned, one of the clubs I was a manager at brought in a nationally known golf course architect to review the courses every year, and recommend changes if necessary.  

Probably not an inexpensive option, but the membership took great pride in their club and courses, and we had the means to accomplish the board's set goals and objectives.  

I also second your proposal of fire prevention rather than firefighting, as little is often accomplished by pointing the finger, after the fact, except ill will.  As a professional in this exact field (club management), I strive for this such fire prevention every day.

It's an easy target, to attach blame to the superintendent.  My experience is that while many matters are well within his control, others are not, and there is where a distinction must be made.  

I don't believe in rash decisionmaking personally or professionally; I do a thorough analysis of all available information, then I make my decision based on facts.

I also notice that we're getting away from Pat's original question, so I recommend we reread the original question, Pat's first post, and get back to it.  

[rgkeller]

rgkeller,

You assume assigning blame for this is important.

Sometimes, as Joe put so well, things occur over a number of years because they are too small to be noticed. Golf courses are not static, they grow and change every day. That's where an outsider becomes helpful, because they are brought in to see the whole picture, and don't have to worry about the day to day details.

Why don't we concentrate on fixing things when we notice them, instead of worrying about who to blame.

The only person who can fix the problem is the superintendent unless you believe that the green mowers should report directly to the Green Committee Chairman or to the General Manager.

[rgkeller]

>>t's an easy target, to attach blame to the superintendent.  My experience is that while many matters are well within his control, others are not, and there is where a distinction must be made.<<

Why would mowing patterns not be under the direct control of the course superintendent?

[Joe Hancock]

The only person who can fix the problem is the superintendent unless you believe that the green mowers should report directly to the Green Committee Chairman or to the General Manager.

rgkeller,

A club should then make sure they hire a super with an architectural background and pay him accordingly.

Joe

[rgkeller]

>>A club should then make sure they hire a super with an architectural background and pay him accordingly.<<

Pay for results is a time tested method of motivation.

All the credentials and the architectural background in the world won't help unless the super gets out there and tells his people exactly what to do.

[Joe Hancock]

All the credentials and the architectural background in the world won't help unless the super gets out there and tells his people exactly what to do.

rgkeller,

I agree with that statement, but it puts the cart ahead of the horse. If the super doesn't know "exactly" what to do, what does he tell the mowing staff? Leadership at most clubs has the super well down the line. If architectural integrity is to be preserved at any club, the directive must be consistent throughout leadership and must be directed from the top. If the super is the only one who knows, then who else will care?

This sort of reminds me of the Detroit Lions. After so many years of changing coaches and players, you'd think that the real problem with the organization would be identified. It starts at the top, i.e. the owners. Blame no one else after so many years of failure. Targeting a super, or several supers as the only problem to shrinking greens is not seeing the whole picture, IMO.

Joe

[rgkeller]

I sincerely doubt that superintendents are taught to allow greens and tees to shrink.

It does not take expertise or even a passing interest in architecture to understand that unintended shrinking greens and tees is not a good thing.

I do not understand the concept that calls for a club to give a superintendent a raise to convince him not to destroy the features of the course he is hired to maintain.

Inattention to detail is the issue and attention to detail is what distinguishes a golf course superintendent from the Lawn Boy franchise.

[TEPaul]

This thread is another example of the usual suspects on GOLFCLUBATLAS naturally being inclined to find someone to assign BLAME to for anything and everything!

In my opinion (and in the opinion of a number of restoration architects), greens that shrink over time was simply sort of an evolutionary process---probably the effects of decades of simply not mowing into the collars (which can create a sort of chopped in or scalped look on a collar).

I had a conversation about this specific subject recently while out at Manufacturers with superintendent Scott May who said he actually encourages his mowers to get right up against the collars when they mow the green surfaces!

Pat:

This kind of thing is completely common and frankly endemic after decades of maintenance practices and the best way to go all the way back out to the outside edge of the green pads is to do a restoration of original green space. That's what we just did at GMGC on our greens as have numerous other older courses who've done really good restorations.

The only guy I know of who actually took shrunken green space back out to the original green pads on his own (probably without the membership being that aware of it) is Mike Rewinski of Westhampton.

There's also a new process now where you can pin the peripheries of restored green space and just shoot it with some satelite process that's not particularly expensive. That way you can tell within a foot or less if you've lost anything to rough or collar surrounds.

[rgkeller]

>>In my opinion (and in the opinion of a number of restoration architects), greens that shrink over time was simply sort of an evolutionary process---probably the effects of decades of simply not mowing into the collars (which can create a sort of chopped in or scalped look on a collar).<<

No kidding.

[TEPaul]

So, would you prefer to understand and accept what very likely were the unintended reasons for an evolutionary process amongst most all the older golf courses, rg, or would you rather just find someone to blame for it?

[rgkeller]

So, would you prefer to understand and accept what very likely were the unintended reasons for an evolutionary process amongst most all the older golf courses, rg, or would you rather just find someone to blame for it?

I would like to identify the person or process that resulted in the problem and then motivate the person or change the process or change the person responsible.

I await the solution that does not include an attentive and conscientious (and well budgeted) course superintendent.

[Don_Mahaffey]

rg,
There are plenty of examples where clubs have recaptured past greatness through hiring a great supt. and, equally important or even more so, the members have made the effort to learn how their course should be maintained. If a Ross course hires a supt. who only knows that Ross was a golden age architect and litte else, how is the new hire supposed to know what to do to maintain the course as Ross intended? No one is saying give a guy a raise and he'll do better, Joe is saying find a qualified guy and pay him enough to keep him around for a while. I believe that most clubs have no idea how to hire a supt. but then I'm biased and probably anything I say about the subject should be taken with a grain of salt.

I will be somewhat in agreement with you, it is the supt's job to get it right, if the members don't want him to do it right he should be able to communicate the reasons why it should be done right. I believe supts should be very proactive when it comes to maintaining the intergety of the course. Having said that, I doubt there are many supts who have the power to make significant changes to the mowing patterens without an OK from above.

[Tags:]

Tags: