Ron Prichard Restorations

[JonSundvold]

I recently noticed a trend with Ron Prichard's last three restorations/renovations(Lakeshore, Beverly, Idle Hour).  All three superintendents who started with those projects are no longer at those particular clubs.  Anyone care to speculate why?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

What purpose would speculation serve ?

Did the superintendents leave or were they terminated ?

What's your theory and what is it based upon ?

[JonSundvold]

One other note on this topic is that Beverly and Lakeshore are already on their second superintendent since those restorations.

[JonSundvold]

Jon,

What purpose would speculation serve ?

Did the superintendents leave or were they terminated ?

What's your theory and what is it based upon ?

[JonSundvold]

No theory, just an observation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

No theory, just an observation.

Then why speculate absent all of the substantive facts ?

[Anthony_Nysse]

Jon,
  Check your IM

Pat-Ease up a bit....he's new to GCA!

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Tom_Doak]

Jon:

I don't know anything about those three clubs.

However, I have noticed in general that when clubs do massive renovation projects -- particularly when clubs decide to rebuild new USGA greens -- the superintendents at those clubs tend to move on quickly thereafter.

There are many possible reasons for this, but with the new USGA greens, I think it boils down to two:

1.  Maintaining USGA greens is a lot different than older construction mixes, and it surprises some people how hard it is; and

2.  Members of clubs which have just spent millions of dollars expect perfection for their money, and perfection on the heels of grow-in is a tall order.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick,

"why speculate absent all of the substantive facts?"

That's a pretty high standard to have to adhere to.

I don't think too many of the thousands upon thousands of posts on this board meet that standard.

In fact, this is as it should be. A discussion board is the perfect place to speculate; and if ALL the substantive facts were available it wouldn't be speculation.

Think of how many fewer 'gods' there'd be if no one was speculating

Peter

[Ian Andrew]

Jon,

Often a large scale restoration like those are the final stage of a Superintendent's master plan to improve of the architecture and maintenance of a course. More often than not the superintendents are looking for a new challenge  or chance to do it again, and they are at ther most marketable point after completing a change that raises the profile of the club.

[tlavin]

I recently noticed a trend with Ron Prichard's last three restorations/renovations(Lakeshore, Beverly, Idle Hour).  All three superintendents who started with those projects are no longer at those particular clubs.  Anyone care to speculate why?

Sure, I'll report in, since I was the chairman of the committee that hired a new superintendent.  There was way too much grousing among the members about the condition of the golf course.  Last year was a drought year and there were many challenges presented to the service that took care of our golf course.  

So we decided to make a change and see if we could identify a superintendent who could make an immediate impact on the major issue according to the membership: inconsistent green speeds.  Some days they would be fast some days they would be very slow.  We are looking for consistently quick (not wacky fast, but quick) greens.

So far, Keith Peterson, our new superintendent, has done a terrific job.  He's had ideal conditions this spring, to be sure, but Beverly hasn't looked or played this good in at least five years, IMHO.

To directly reply to the inference in your post, the change at Beverly had NOTHING to do with Ron Prichard.  The subject never came up.  Never.

Hope all is well with you, Jon.  We enjoyed your work at Beverly.

[Mike_Young]

I am not saying it happened in these particular instances but I have personally seen it happen where a supt that has been at a course for a while has completely different ideas than the architect and friction begins when changes begin...
I can name 5 projects in ATL area this past 2 years where supts left at or near beginning of a redo/resto....
It is almost a no win situation for a supt to remain after a redo/resto   AND it really isn't fair but it is the nature of that business...

[SL_Solow]

Lakeshore lost several greens shortly after the renovation.  While weather was tough, there were some obvious errors and a change was made.  While reaction to the renovation is mixed, there has been no speculation that the changes made had a causal relationship to the maintenance difficulties.

[Brent Hutto]

So in general are USGA-type greens more difficult to maintain than native soil ones or other types? Or is the challenge more due to being different rather than harder per se?

I see occasional comments that lead me to believe the architects and superintendents who post here think univeral adoption of the USGA green specifications would be a bad thing. Is that a prevailing opinion in the industry or is it one of those things that are conventional wisdom on this forum but a minority opinion in the wider world?

[Tom_Doak]

Brent:

It's more of a matter of USGA greens being different than soil-based greens.  I think USGA greens may be touchier in the summer heat (especially brand-new ones), but especially so for a superintendent not used to dealing with them.

As to your other question, I'm a big proponent of not building USGA greens when the native soils are good enough, but I don't know that many other architects are on board with that.  As alluded to on another thread, specifying anything other than USGA greens could be seen as malpractice down the road (because you didn't use the "industry standard") if the super lost the greens; if you build USGA greens then it becomes the super's fault.

[Jon Wiggett]

Brent,

I agree with Tom that if the local soil is good enough then it is okay or probably better than USGA. The quality of the sward is more dependent on the maintanence program than the rootzone and I have always prefered a certain amount of humus content in my green rootzones as it makes them easier to maintain and helps make the greens blend better into the surounds. There is a tendency to think that when you have expensive USGA greens if something goes wrong then the super is to blame but with push up greens it is the green. The opposite is normally the case. So why are so many USGA greens built? It takes a brave man to go against the flow!!!

[Paul Richards]

?

[Jeff Goldman]

Echoing Tom's point, we had a difficult summer last year as well, and we have 2 USGA greens built around 1999 or so on our North Course (all 18 were regrassed with L-93 around then).  The 2 USGA greens fared far worse than the other greens on that course, which were lousy, but sort of playable.  

Incidentally, this year the North Course greens have made a 180 degree turnaround, and have been terrific so far (and the USGA greens are improving).  I'm going to give our new superintendent a big smoocheroo this week when I see him.  A great learning experience to hear him talk about the need for differing maintenance practices on each green.

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Incrementally, how much more design latitude-flexibility do you think you pick up by building other than USGA greens ?

Does the use of USGA greens impede subsequent tinkering ?

[Tags:]

Tags: