What are the top ten mistakes that green committees make ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In my opinion the biggest mistakes that green committees make and probably always have is to make various demands on superintendents without the vaguest idea what he has to go through to accomplish various demands. There is an almost universal lack of understanding on green committees regarding the details of agronomy and maintenance practices. It's so bad sometimes these committees actually say "This man works for us and he has no right to offer his opinions---he must only do as we say. It's so bad that supers all around the world have actually developed a special language to deal with these committees. It's called Fudgese. It's a cross between Greek words (generally agronomic diseases) and expert verbal deflection. It's practically the only possible way supers can talk to these benighted people and get them to go away.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I always ask people who tell superintendents what to do, if they tell their heart, back or brain surgeons how to conduct surgery as well.

You hire professionals for a good reason, to provide the knowledge and experience that you don't possess.

And, if you don't listen to their advice on matters of agronomy, you shouldn't be on the committe or board, and that includes the Chairman.

Philip Young,

I would disagree with your example.

There was a clear choice and the prudent one was made.

All too often greens shrink because of benign neglect.

Brad Klein,

There are certain clubs where the membership has great, if not complete, confidence in the motives and abilities of the green committee, and as such, don't require lines of communication, for consent or any other reason.

Pine Valley, Seminole, Friar's Head, Hidden Creek, Sand Hills, ANGC and others come to mind.  But, these are GOLF clubs and enjoy a special relationship with their members.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

I appreciate your disagreement but I wonder if you might not consider what I said once again. A suggestion was made as to what is a definite mistake. I used a real world example to show that DOING it was not a mistake because of the REASON for it.

Green Committees can do very good work when those on it can reason well. A golf course is an evolving entity and needs to be cared as such. This can only happen when those who are well qualified to do so are in charge.

That is why I believe that the major mistakes are caused by those who don't understand yet are in charge. It is not what is done, but why.

Kyle, there is NO green committee at Bethpage. That is what probably protected its purity all those years.

[Kyle Harris]

Phil,

I have misread, I thought you were speaking of the cutback in maintained turf of the Green Course at Bethpage.

I misread and now realize you said Winged Foot...

Is Craig Currier given free reign in decision making at Bethpage, or does he answer to the State?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip Young,

How did all of these wonderful golf courses get disfigured over the years ?

It wasn't the tennis or entertainment committee.

[RJ_Daley]

How did all of these wonderful golf courses get disfigured over the years ?

As you said above, various clubs have various structures.  They have evolved to these organizational and legal structures over years of tax laws imposing certain duties to their boards, various by-laws that originally existed, and those that were duly ammended.  Yet, they didn't all evolve the same way, just as their courses didn't age, or get maintained the same way.

What to do right now for a club is still dependent on what they have to work with.  If it is a big emphasis social club, tennis, pools, lawn bowling, dining, etc., they just aren't going to have the same priorities as Sand Hills.  They may only have a mediocre design to begin with.  

I think the most important theme above is the studious development of a masterplan that considers the quality of design and tradition (if any) and then specifically lay out a procedure that must be followed to justify any design changes.  The plan should also be written with the original archie if alive, and if dead, with the best imput available as to that archie's tendancies.  The super should be in the planning from the begining, and when it comes to setting a plan for maintenance meld, he should have major say in what is possible, and justify the plan from agronomic and realistic criteria.  

Then, the green committee should take on the express role of guarding the masterplan, and they should have to go through a rigorous process if deviations from that plan are justified by extraordinary circumstances.  They should become a facilitator of the plan, not a design or change agent.

If you have a mediocre course design, then when you have the funds, do a complete masterplan, and stick to it.  You can do the agreed upon master plan remodelling over time, but after the design plan and intent is set nothing more on piecemeal feature redesign by new designers or committee persons.

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

Youi keep misunderstanding what I am saying. The CAUSE of the problem is not what the Committee did, but WHY they chose to take an action.

For example, if there is a problem with drainage and they get expert advice to install drainage pipes in an area and then do so, and after several years this causes back-ups in other parts of the property, the problem wasn't the action taken. It was the ADVICE THEY WERE GIVEN! Yet the REASON for the action taken was a SOUND ONE even though it didn't turn out well.

I believe that many actions taken by green committees may be based upon sound reasonings that turn out to be incorrect later. This is NOT a mistake on their part, just something unforeseeable. At the same time, when an action is taken by those because of poor reasoning, it is not the action, but the reasoning that is at fault. The action is the consequence of the reasoning. This is not a case of semantics, rather it is locating the weak link in the process.

So again, my original example of Winged Foot where the action of shrinking the greens in trhe Depression & WW II ended up saving the East Course, was a case of good reasoning and proper action, despite the idea that "one of the ten common mistakes that green committees make is to shrink green sizes."

It's not rocket science but it also isn't so black & white either and that is what I am trying to point out.

Kyle, at Bethpage, Craig has to get permission from Dave Catalano. Whenever there is a proposed change to the Black, they get advice from several sources. These are organizations, architects and individuals with special knowledge of teh facility and course. They do not just go and do it. They exert GREAT CARE and are making every effort to bring each course back to fitting into original design intents, especially when lengthening of holes or bunkers are being considered.

[Stuart Hallett]

As already stated, the problem comes when confirmed professionals in whatever domaine it may be, are invited to give their opinion on golf matters they know nothing about. They inevitably voice their opinion strongly to justify their presence.

I have the privilege to work within a condensed committee group, comprising of the President, Greens chairman, Secretary, Course Manager, Deputy Course Manager and a consultant if needed. These knowledgeable individuals understand the big picture, and work closely to develop the way forward for the course. If one or more disagrees on any given subject, then the project is shelved and reviewed at a later date.

Successful projects are presented in detail to other committee members for approval. They ask questions, we answer, and usually it gets approval. In the meantime, other meetings involve discussions about the odd dead tree or bunker sand, usual subjects for your average committee member.

My point is that the mutual respect of knowledgeable club officials, working on an equal standing, can go a long way to avoiding weak compromises or rash decisions.

[Mike_Young]

Because of their assumed knowledge of the game they assume great knowledge of  golf the business and thus a lack of respect for professionals be it architect, supt. or whatever  .
Listen to good players, especially tour players for answers without knowing if they have knowledge.
Overall just confuse the game with the business.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Philip Young,

I don't believe that green committees actively shrink greens.

I think the process is one of benign neglect or daily maintainance practices that gradually diminish the size of the green from it's intended foot pad to a reduced configuration, especially where sharp fall offs exist.

[T_MacWood]

Indiscriminate tree planting.

Believing an inactive committee is a poor committee.

[Adam_F_Collins]

"Beautification" projects...

[Phil_the_Author]

Pat,

You might not believe that "green committees actively shrink greens" but I cited an example where they stepped in and consciously ordered the cutting back (pardon the unintended pun ) of the sizes of the greens on two world-renowned courses, reducing their overall dimensions by nearly 40% and they were CORRECT in doing so. It ended up saving one of the courses when pressure was put on to let it go fallow and back to the land.

The reason I briought it up was because the suggestion was made that reducing green sizes was one of the top ten mistakes. My contention is that the action is never the mistake, that the reasons for ordering them are.

Committees today are now facing decisions on the wholesale removal of trees on courses. Whereas this may be prudent, correct and even healthy in many places, cutting back for the sake of cutting back isn't. Without the proper questions involving the why something should be done being first in the process after a suggestion is made, an action following decision will have very little opportunity to be correct. In a case such as this, the mistake was in not asking and acting out of lack of knowledge, not the action itself.

I think that every green committee should put into place a procedures plan that outlines how a proposed course of action should make it from suggestion through committee to implementation, and that club's should force this on them. This will halt many preventable mistakes and allow work to be done that might otherwise be stopped because someone has decided that it is a mistake on face value.

[Kyle Harris]

Phil,

I've amended my post to read: "Through neglect, allowing greens to shrink."

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I would add Club Presidents who want to "make their mark" as an adjunct to this thread. In many cases, their power is greater than the committee.