News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #25 on: May 27, 2007, 11:47:02 AM »
In reading many of the above posts, I do want to comment that I think it is extremly important to play golf also. A supterintendent doesn't have to be be a great player, but it really allows for a different look on a golf course rather than driving around on a club car. I think that if a membership desires fast and firms conditions, they should also desire a superintendent that play and understands the game of golf.

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #26 on: May 27, 2007, 11:52:42 AM »
You know, Anthony, it's obviously helpful for a super to play his course if he's trying to transition to F&F and such but it is not absolutely necessary. It's probably even more helpful to him to simply go out on the course and just watch what's happening with golfers. If he sees that golf ball bouncing high and really rolling around on the course that's all he really need to know.

What I think supers should do more of is go out there and just putt a couple of balls all over those greens---not necessarily at a pin---just putt it all over those greens to see what's happening with rollout on and around and into various green sections.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 11:55:21 AM by TEPaul »

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #27 on: May 27, 2007, 12:00:44 PM »
The same should be said of LA's.

How many LA's out there don't play and design courses anyway?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

John Kirk

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #28 on: May 27, 2007, 02:17:53 PM »
John Kirk,
Usually Supers are very hesitant to disclose mowing heights because they end up being used for comparison purposes. Problem is, unless the same brand mowers are used, set up by the same mechanic, using all the same front and rear rollers, and used on the same type of grass, the comparisons are really meaningless.

Throw out Ballyneal, new course with a type of grass that is almost always maintained at a significantly higher height of cut, and the other three are all really in the same ballpark.

The only way to truly measure the HOC from one course to the next is with the use of a prism gauge.



Don,

Do you think it best to remove the mowing heights from that post?

 

Don_Mahaffey

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #29 on: May 27, 2007, 02:30:03 PM »
John,
No, I don't think you need to remove the #s.
Just take them for what they are worth when comparing courses or green speed, and they're not worth much.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2007, 05:00:48 PM »
For Joe Hancock,

If you don't mind, what is the predominant species in your greens, the soil type, and the depth of roots in summer?

How much N-P-K would you say you put out in a year?

Do you use any pesticides at all?

I am interested in learning more about your methods.

The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2007, 05:16:43 PM »
Don and Joe:

Thanks for your excellent discussion of this topic, and I hope there is more to come.  

I, too, have worried that Tom Paul's reminders of the high cost of firm & fast perfection overstress the money side of the equation.  Unfortunately, the biggest factor in any superintendent's salary (when he is not the owner/operator ;) that is) is the maintenance budget he operates under.  Therefore the finest superintendents have an incentive to make life more difficult by trying to keep the course firm AND green even when it doesn't need to be.

What would the best courses look like and play like, if the superintendent was given a reasonable amount of money and told to concentrate on playability alone, and not subjected to the advice of the members?

Tony N:  Twenty years ago I would have agreed with you that the best superintendents would all be good golfers who understood the game -- but a couple of the best superintendents I've met and worked with have been guys who barely played the game at all.  Just like a golf course architect doesn't have to be a two handicap to understand design, the superintendent doesn't have to play much to understand good conditions.

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2007, 06:06:06 PM »
"I, too, have worried that Tom Paul's reminders of the high cost of firm & fast perfection overstress the money side of the equation.  Unfortunately, the biggest factor in any superintendent's salary (when he is not the owner/operator  that is) is the maintenance budget he operates under.  Therefore the finest superintendents have an incentive to make life more difficult by trying to keep the course firm AND green even when it doesn't need to be."



This is a subject that needs to be pointed out constantly, in my opinion, so clubs who want firm and fast can and will realize that you can have firm and fast constantly even in the dead of summer (when lack of rain permits) AND green too---eg not a lush green but that "light green sheen" and no real browning down but it DOES cost money and LOTS OF IT to have firm and fast AND green in those weather conditions.

The point is if you let your course stay firm and fast and it browns down some it basically plays just as good as the firm and fast of that "iight green sheen" and it cost a WHOLE LOT LESS.

The deal is with the best supers who let their courses get firm and fast and brown out some in those kinds of real hot summer months is what some have come to call "managed turf loss", particularly during a course's "transition period" from a long term culture of over-irrigation and chemical over-dependency to a firm and fast program.

I asked the super of one of the nation's top courses recently that has a big budget if the constant syringing to keep that "light green sheen" and avoid the browning out costs around $400,000-$500,000? He said; "Probably not that much---well maybe it is that much."
« Last Edit: May 27, 2007, 06:08:34 PM by TEPaul »

Donnie Beck

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #33 on: May 28, 2007, 08:29:15 PM »
No list would be complete without Bobby Raynum and Bill Jones. I have learned a great deal from them over the years.

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #34 on: May 28, 2007, 08:42:27 PM »
In Joe’s case I think it is more a matter of necessity and principle. Courses like Joe’s that exist in an overbuilt environment need to do one of two things. Either they do everything possible to cut costs and take a “minimalist” approach to turf management like Joe has done, or stripe the hell out of everything and try to grab everyone’s attention. Most privately owned daily fees seem to go the latter route, but I think we’re seeing an economy where the less expensive courses are finally learning that cost is what drives the “working class” golfer and a “less input” agronomic plan can work. Of course the #1 mistake they make when they realize this is they think they don’t need a high quality super, when in fact they need one more than ever.

Don,

In all honesty, when I embarked on pulling back on inputs, it truly was for playability reasons. It started with less water.... I had no real idea of where this whole mindset was to end up. I didn't fully realize what the true benefits were, and may never really know.

In my first years, I was still doing several applications of fertilizer per year, still doing more fungicide applications than I am now. The honest reason behind my ability to maintain better turf with less product now is because the turf adapted. Grass has no idea how much fertilizer costs, nor does it care.  ;D

I also have to say that there were certain other individuals who were inspirational, and they likely have no idea. Dan at Kingsley, and of course Mike DeVries. One of the highest compliments I received was last year, when Bob Renquist came by and played....he said it was the most fun golf he has played in years. (Bob has the "Bunker" paper in the "In My Opinion" section of the website)

Thanks,

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #35 on: May 29, 2007, 09:02:11 AM »
A couple of questions for the superintendents, since they all seem to be congregating on this thread...

Is there a direct relationship between a grasses blade length and its root length/depth?

How does verticutting and/or grooming (the term used by the super at our course) effect this relationship?

Thanks



p.s. We are in suburban Philadelphia with fairly old (I believe) Penncross Bent greens, and he keeps the fairways and greens as firm and dry as weather will allow if that matters...
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 09:03:32 AM by JES II »

Sean Remington (SBR)

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #36 on: May 29, 2007, 11:46:48 AM »
   Have only had time to scan this thread so far but it is really interesting. Looking forward to reading in more detail this evening.  Once the list of F&F Supers is determined it would be interesting to survey them in someway to determine the commonalities between them. There are things that all of us can and should do to improve the playability of our course and move in the F&F direction.

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #37 on: May 29, 2007, 11:59:15 AM »
     Questuion #1: Does anybody believe there is a correlation between a super's handicap and his sensitivity to playability issues?  
      Question #2: Can a super who doesn't play golf semi= seriously (say, fewer than 20 rounds per year with handicap over 20) be appropriately sensitive to playabilty issues?

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #38 on: May 29, 2007, 12:15:43 PM »
I feel playing golf weekly doesn't necessarily make me a better agronomist, but I believe it makes me a better superintendent.
Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #39 on: May 29, 2007, 03:46:18 PM »
"I feel playing golf weekly doesn't necessarily make me a better agronomist, but I believe it makes me a better superintendent."

JohnG:

Some examples of why you think that makes you a better superintendent would be very helpful to this thread.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 03:47:32 PM by TEPaul »

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #40 on: May 30, 2007, 08:15:33 AM »

Tom, everybody in their line of work has strengths and areas of opportunity (weaknesses....don't like that word). In my case I use my love for the game of golf to help me better communicate and build relationships with members and fellow superintendents.

The way I look at it is that I am providing ever changing end product to a group of customer’s everyday. That end product is not some type of material thing that they take home with them when they leave the property it is the experience. Much like the experience of going to a fine restaurant. If I never, or almost never, experience what I am supposed to be delivering how can I sincerely have a meaningful conversation with the customer about their experience?

When I play golf with a group of members I always seem to learn something new in terms of how they look at the golf course or what their concerns are, which are often very different from mine. Sometime their concerns are legitimate and it is something I need to pay more attention to and sometimes the concerns are based on misinformation or not a clear understanding of what we are trying to achieve. This time on the golf course allows me to disseminate and receive a lot of good information first hand directly to and from the customer. Everyone almost always walks away with a better understanding. Just like anybody playing customer golf I have a captive audience for four plus hours and it is a great opportunity to get my message across.


Also, right or wrong, being an avid golfer gives me instant credibility with most members. They know that I play in GAP events, Superintendent events, and that I try to play as many different courses as I can each year. I truly believe that, that credibility has always helped me sell my programs or approach to golf course management. For instance, if I am discussing F/F conditions, personally I am more convincing when I can relate to my own experiences as a player, not as a superintendent.

Just taking time to pay different courses has allowed me the opportunity to see and learn form other facilities. It helps me stay current by knowing what is going on in the world of golf around me. Lat year I played 27 new courses that I have not played before and in over half of the circumstances I got to spend time with the superintendent for a little info share session. One example was last October after experiencing Fishers Island for the first time I lucky enough to corner Donnie Beck for a quick info share session. Although sitting by the clubhouse in the late afternoon talking turf and course restoration with Donnie was so enjoyable it didn't feel like work, I did leave with a lot a of good information not to mention feeling very motivated.

This is just a couple examples as there are many more. Need to get back to work. I am sure you get the point.

Back to the topic on Supers and playability. I would say more and more superintendents today, than anytime in recent history, are placing playability ahead of aesthetics. Ideally sound agronomics comes first, then playability, and third would be aesthetics.




 
Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

TEPaul

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #41 on: May 30, 2007, 08:36:08 AM »
"This is just a couple examples as there are many more. Need to get back to work. I am sure you get the point."

JohnG:

I certainly do. Very good post and thanks for that. And now I'm extending you an invitation to come over and play my course anytime you can do it. You know where to find me. I'm also extending you an invitation to come over and play Merion any time you can do it which is pretty interesting since I don't even belong to Merion.  ;)

PS;

You and Wayne and a couple of others can play and Matt and I will walk and watch.

wsmorrison

Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #42 on: May 30, 2007, 08:40:56 AM »
John,

I hope you do take Tom up on his invitations...to his own course and others.  It would be a pleasure to play with you at my club.  I hope to visit you and see how things are going...no need to play just take a look around.  The buzz around these parts is things are going very well and I'd like to see what everyone's talking about.

Anthony_Nysse

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #43 on: May 30, 2007, 09:43:49 AM »
Mr. Gosselin,
  You said it best when you used the word "Credibility." That's why I stated in an earlier comment about the importance of playing golf. I think that memberships believe that you're in their shoes when you play golf and can see their comments or complaints, whether they are legit of not. Great post!

Tony Nysse
Sr. Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC
Anthony J. Nysse
Director of Golf Courses & Grounds
Apogee Club
Hobe Sound, FL

David Sneddon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:"Playability" superintendents
« Reply #44 on: May 30, 2007, 09:44:13 AM »
David:

Have you ever seen a fake "faux" links or even an imitation "faux" links? How about a "Trompe l'oeil" links?

I played one course some years ago, and I cannot remember the name of it for the life of me, but it would qualify as a 'fake faux' links - it was bad - really bad.

As for the 'Tromp', no, but I hear those courses can be quite hairy - almost over the top.
 ;D ;D
Give my love to Mary and bury me in Dornoch

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back