[John Kavanaugh]

A Super asked me the above.  What is the relationship between the super/pro/architecture?  What role, if any, does the pro play in the playability of the course at modern clubs?  My personal belief if that the pro sets and guides the culture of the playing of the game and thus is the single most important person in golf management from an architectural perspective.  Am I wrong?

[David Whitmer]

I was a club pro for 8 years at a private club. The only influence I had over the playability of the golf course was during a big club event, where I would set the hole locations and tee markers. Other than that, the superintendent set up the course as he saw fit, and gave us a report each day as to the playability.

I believed when I was a club pro, and I believe now that I am a member at a club, that the majority of private club members don't really care who the pro is. The average member wants an accessable golf course and a nice pace-of-play. It is my opinion that the superintendent is the most important person when it comes to the golf course and the playing culture.

[John Kavanaugh]

I believed when I was a club pro, and I believe now that I am a member at a club, that the majority of private club members don't really care who the pro is.

David,

Did you feel that way before you chose to be a pro?  I grew up playing in the 70's when I believe Pro's were much more in control and respected by the membership.  When do you think the worm turned and why?

[Mark Manuel]

I agree that the Super is more critical for the course and development of any architectural changes related to the course.

But, the Pro, at least at our club, is responsible for creating the right atmosphere.  He helps with pace of play, putting groups together and helping to insure a positive experience for everyone.  It helps if he or an assistant can get out with the members and play 18 every now and then. 

I have seen clubs with a good pro and everyone seems to like being there.  I have seen places with a bad pro and no one spends time in the shop and seems to count the days when they can find a new one. 

Not an easy job.

[Bruce Leland]

John:  The Pro has always been the most visible member of management at most clubs.  Resonsible for tee times, tournaments, etc.  The Super has been most respnsible for the "playing experience" of the course after the archie has done his thing and the course is open for play.

Why the change in the elevation of the Supt.'s status at the club.  For the most part, todays Supt and the Profession of Golf Course Maintainance has been elevated by more professional standards, education and the strong local and National organization.....The Golf Course Supts of America and their international counterparts.

That's not to say that earlier Supts didn't know what was going on, quite the contrary.  The job is now a profession with requisite 4 year plus degrees associated!  There are a bunch of very qualified Supers out there today.

[ChipRoyce]

This is a very interesting thread of discussion to me.

From what I'm seeing at many clubs, the Head Pro / Director of Golf is becoming more and more of a figurehead and not having a real impact on the golf experience at the clubs.

I don't ask the Pro to get me on other courses, they usually balk anyways. He/she doesn't give me lessons, there's usually one assistant on the staff who's a better teacher. I don't even get a chance to have a beer and pick their brain - they stay away from member areas and don't interact too much.

To me personally, its the guy behind the counter when I walk in has the greatest influence on my golf experience. They'll help me set up a game, introduce me to other members and, once we establish a trusted relationship, give me the scoop on what's going on behind the scenes.

[Greg Chambers]

A Super asked me the above.  What is the relationship between the super/pro/architecture?  What role, if any, does the pro play in the playability of the course at modern clubs?  My personal belief if that the pro sets and guides the culture of the playing of the game and thus is the single most important person in golf management from an architectural perspective.  Am I wrong?

What does standing behind a counter taking tee times and money have to do with the architecture of the course?  Is it not the super that is in control of course conditions, thus bringing out, or hiding, architectural features?  If the pro was out there, then maybe they would have something to do with course conditions.  But in my 14 years, I've rarely seen a pro give any insight into the conditioning of the course, other than to complain about green speeds.

[Mike McGuire]

The head pro can have a huge impact on the how the course plays. If he buys into efforts to improve the course - tree management, firmer conditions, restoration etc... he can help sell it to the members and things happen.

If he stays on the fence its harder to get things done.

[Greg Chambers]

The head pro can have a huge impact on the how the course plays. If he buys into efforts to improve the course - tree management, firmer conditions, restoration etc... he can help sell it to the members and things happen.

If he stays on the fence its harder to get things done.

Aren't consultants ALWAYS brought in to help sell tree management, restoration, etc.  And firmer conditions should be up the super to communicate to the members.  Again, not sure how the pro has any impact on how the course plays.

[Mike_Young]

John,
As you know there is a huge difference between a professional golfer and a golf professional....yet many of the older pros became golf professionals as the results of being professional golfers.  
The PGA in the last 20 years got beat by the Club Managers Assoc. CMAA and have had to take a back seat at most clubs to the Club Manager who thinks he can save money in the pro position.....yet I think the PGA requires that the Golf Supt be under the direction of the Pro in order fro him to hold the title Director of Golf.  
The associations(unions) have gotten the entire operation out of whack.....JMO

[D_Malley]

many clubs are set up differently in this regard, but there is usually at least one member of the golf shop staff that sets the tone for your club.  Now i do believe that if you have a good pro he would be that person.  but at some clubs it could be an asst. pro or at many clubs it is the caddymaster.  

[Adam Clayman]

The individual nature of the pro seems as varied (and important) as the architecture.
 I'd suspect an amazing percentage of great courses also have great pros. From my limited exposure my definition of great is one who makes me feel welcome.

On the public side, I can't recall any more than a finger full of pros who did that.

A lack of pretense is also a palpable quality felt if done properly.

[John Kavanaugh]

Please do not tell me that Supers are now in charge of defining what is either a lateral or water hazard. (red or yellow stakes) Please don't tell me that it is the Super who is in control of where the member or championship tee markers are placed.  Please don't tell me it is the Super who defines the depth of bunkers over time. Please don't tell me it is the Super who defines a culture of either match or medal play through events.  Please don't tell me the Super defines rough lines and height.  Please don't tell me that the Super is responsible for a single issue concerning the structural architecture of the course.  I am reminded of the time my wife was looking over construction plans for the clubhouse renovation and asked why we needed such a large ball room.  She didn't think a club needed to stock that many golf balls at any one time.  Perhaps she was right and we need to return to a time when Pro's had a set and ran things like golfers want.  If the opinions of this board are true and Pro's no longer have worth then I agree to let em go under one condition.  Move the Supers office into the pro shop instead of the back forty so they can filter the information golfers need to get out that lets a game be a game.  Under the current reign of unseen mystical super control we are suffering waxation without representation.  Wax on, wax off makes for a boring game.

[Tom_Doak]

In my travels I have seen all sorts of arrangements:

a.  Most of the Japanese clubs appear to have no golf professional at all, or at least he stays in the background giving lessons and doesn't take an active role in running the golf operations.

b.  At UK clubs the professional owns and operates the shop and has input on the playability of the course for events, but the club secretary runs the club and visitor play.

c.  In the USA it depends entirely on the club.  One of my courses, a daily-fee course in a tourist area, has tried at various times to go without a real PGA pro to save money.  It seems to backfire on them ... downstate club pros don't send their members to play the course, because they are afraid (with justification) that the members won't be properly taken care of ... there is no "club secretary" role as US professional club managers stay in their offices and answer only to the members.  Yet at some famous courses with which we're all familiar, the professional stays in the shadows and has very little to do with operations.   While at others (Cypress Point, Crystal Downs, Merion), the golf professional is the guy who makes everything fun and keeps the members from doing stupid things to the course.

[JMEvensky]

I think the one(and perhaps only) job requirement which has remained constant for a Head Pro is keeping the members interested in coming out to play golf.

Most "faults" can be overlooked if the members have a good time when they get to play.Unfortunately,this is sometimes a pretty high hurdle.

[Jerry Kluger]

The superintendent has very little contact with the members other than the greens committee while the head professional has day-to-day contact with the members.  It is critical that the head professional and the superintendent communicate on a regular basis so that the member feedback can be relayed to the super and they can have a unified position.  So too must the golf and greens committee be in regular contact and not have conflicting positions.  My experience has been that every member has his or her own opinion about what should be done concerning course conditioning, etc., and they cannot be told different things by the super vs. the pro vs. the greens committee vs. the golf committee.  Most pros that I have met try to fully understand what the super's concerns are, including budget issues, and try to relay member concerns to him.  The greatest faults I have seen by head professionals is not explaining to the members why a situation or condition exists.

[Mike McGuire]

The head pro can have a huge impact on the how the course plays. If he buys into efforts to improve the course - tree management, firmer conditions, restoration etc... he can help sell it to the members and things happen.

If he stays on the fence its harder to get things done.

Aren't consultants ALWAYS brought in to help sell tree management, restoration, etc.  And firmer conditions should be up the super to communicate to the members.  Again, not sure how the pro has any impact on how the course plays.

The consultant is there for a meeting or two. The pro is there every day talking to the members.

A lot of golf professionals operate in a politically correct mode and prefer not to take sides. A committed pro who understands the issues on the course can educate the unhappy member who did not like a tree being cut down. This can lead to more progress hence the pro having an impact on how the course plays.

[JMEvensky]

A lot of golf professionals operate in a politically correct mode and prefer not to take sides. A committed pro who understands the issues on the course can educate the unhappy member who did not like a tree being cut down. This can lead to more progress hence the pro having an impact on how the course plays.
[/quote]

I wouldn't call this "politically correct".It's more a matter of common sense.There is always the chance that the member he tries unsuccessfully to placate will,one day,be the member deciding his continued employment.

I think the only people that need to speak about course maintenance are the Green Chairman and Committee.Allowing each member to opine to the Super is a recipe for disaster.All it does is waste the Super's time and piss off the member who wonders why his opinions aren't being heeded.

[Abe Summers]

Pros are much more focused on daily operations and management than architecture, although the PGA of America has been aggressive at encouraging members to become knowledgeable in all aspects of the business.  PGA Members more and more have the credentials to move easily into top management -- and they often have significantly more diverse, grass roots, hands on, and golf related experience in the industry compared to the CMAA mold, which is very exclusive.  

To specifically see how PGA pros are expanding their roles, I would recommend you take a long look at the criteria to become a pro and also the PGA Certified Professional Program.  (http://pgajobfinder.pgalinks.com/helpwanted/empcenter/benefits.cfm)

[JSPayne]

IMO, I've always seen the head pro as the "golf guru" of the course. I've had the pleasure to work with some great pros at the courses I've worked at and here's what I perceived their main and important job functions and contributions to the club to be:

- Resident expert on USGA rules: this can include marking the course and setting things up correctly for a major tournament (though I know plenty of supers well-educated enough in rules to do this on their own) but mainly the pro should be the guy to make the end-all decision in any tournament or rules debate question

- Often the best passage of communication of on-course issues from the super to the membership: most pros, by nature of their job, tend to be better communicators and "people persons" than superintendents. While a super should be asked and referred to for nearly all course complaints and concerns, often the pro, with good communication from his super, can field many of these questions, or filter through "whines" or emotional complaints about course conditions and real causes of concern. The best pros I've worked with are ones who take an active interest in knowing what's going on at the course at all times, give his feedback on how those maintenance practices might affect course play, and work with the super to understand the rational behind doing such things and creating an alliance to educate the golfers for the betterment of course conditions.

- Some great pros still have the time and ability to give lessons: this is more the older generation of pros, but even when I started golf (not that long ago), the head pro was always regarded as the best teacher and the main guy to go to if you really wanted to dial in the finer points of the game. Nowadays, head pros often get straddled with so much administrative duties and this endearing practice takes a backseat to running the business

- Organizing and ensuring the success and enjoyment of tournaments: for public courses, this means being directly responsible for the main revenue stream of the club and for privates, this is often viewed as how enjoyable a golf membership at that club is.

- Building a team: this includes hiring the right people to take the absolute best care of the golfers, from outside service to front desk to on course assistants to marshalls. Hiring the right people and managing such a large group is key to a golfers enjoyment and experience at the club and the pro is directly responsible.

- Running the golf shop: this sometimes gets handed over to an extent to assistant pros, but the head pro has a retail business to run as well, and is responsible for meeting his members needs and wants, being the resident expert on club and ball and apparel advice while trying to generate revenue for the club.


I know I'm still missing some, but if all this doesn't amount to "doing something for the club" I don't know what does. The head pro, with the super and the general manager and the food and beverage manager make up the vital heart core of any club and most clubs suffer a severe lack of quality and experience when they are missing any of these key leaders.

One is not necessary more important than the others, but pay scale most often directly correlates with experience, education and responsibility, both in scope of work and in regards to management of club finanaces.

[Bradley Anderson]

I'm going out this afternoon with the pro that I work with to paint contours and expansions. His players perspective plus my maintenance perspective. We defer to each other in our respective areas.

But I agree with John that the culture of the club should be more vested in the pro than the supt. However, the identity of a club should be more multi-faceted than what any one person may contribute.

[David Whitmer]

I believed when I was a club pro, and I believe now that I am a member at a club, that the majority of private club members don't really care who the pro is.

David,

Did you feel that way before you chose to be a pro?  I grew up playing in the 70's when I believe Pro's were much more in control and respected by the membership.  When do you think the worm turned and why?

John,

I did not think that way before I became a pro. I envisioned it being much like others on this thread have described it, where the pro was almost the center of the golf operation, and all things went through him. At my club right before I left, I had very little say on the golf course. The greens chairman and the superintendent had their own discussions about rough height, bunker depth, green speeds, etc. The only thing I or anyone on my staff did on the course relative to how the course played was setting it up for big tournaments, and painting hazards.

JMEvensky,

I understood all issues on the course. However, any member who was not pleased with something specific on the course knew the decision did not come from me, and therefore went to the greens chairman to vent frustration.

The way I looked at it, the greens chairman and the superintendent gave me a golf course, and I ran the day-to-day play and tournaments. I had nothing to do with how the golf course played, and the superintendent had nothing to do with the format of my next tournament.

[JMEvensky]

David Whitmer,that's a pretty good way to think of it.The point I was trying to make is that,frequently,a Head Pro gets blamed for things over which he has no control(maintenance,etc.).No responsible Green Chairman should ever let the Pro take the rap-he should be out front taking the responsibility.

Bottom line,you can't let your Head Pro,Super,or any other employee be the members' punching bags.

[Jeff Evagues]

For those of us that have never belonged to a private club, just what exactly does a green chairman do?

[Kalen Braley]

I always thought by definition:

That a "golf professional" took care of the golf teaching and playing parts.  Tourneys, lessons, pro shop, carts, tee times, etc.

And the "Superintendent" too care of the course parts.  Conditioning, course setup, maintainence, alterations, etc.

Sounds like its more sort of like a small company where power plays and kingdom building are more fluid and at the whims of who the biggest dog on the block is.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()