Supers and Course Managers. How much do they influence green committees?

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Recent threads about planting trees on formerly wide open courses, loss of width, insufferable rough and so on reminded me that at a number of members' clubs in the UK the course manager or head greenkeeper sits as a full member of the green committee. That person may be only one of six or seven members and will be subordinate to the chairman. Nevertheless they are in a position to influence policy.

Are institutions such as BIGGA in the forefront of directing thought on such matters? Do these institutions communicate to their members the sort of thoughts that are advocated on this site, even if only an option, not a compulsion?

[Jason Topp]

I don't know about the organization BIGGA but superintendents have so much more knowledge than members of a green committee that they have a very strong influence in my experience.

[JMEvensky]

An American sampling size of one.

At my place,the Super is now answerable only to the GM--the Green Chairman can make suggestions,but if push comes to shove,the Super is going to do what the GM tells him to do.The reasons for this arrangement are specific to the intelligence/personalities,or lack thereof,of the current Board members.

The GM sits in Board meetings and Green Committee meetings.The Super is,on occasion,invited to Green Committee meetings.The Super knows not to offer an opinion different from the GM's.

The net result of this is that the GM,who neither plays golf nor knows anything about maintaining/preparing golf courses,believes in the "aesthetics first" philosophy of golf course maintenance.If a single member complains about the lack of green,maximum irrigation is immediately called for.Playability is not ever a concern.

But on the bright side,the GM is a great F and B guy so the hamburgers are much better now.

[BCrosby]

As courses evolve, 95% of the time it is through one detail after another, each one seemingly innocuous on its own. Supers are on the gound every day making decisions about those details. They have tremendous influence.

Bob

[David Nelson]

I think it's down to the individual and how strong a personality he or she has, I think the majority of people in their position will sucumb to most requests by commitee's to maintain their jobs. I met a Head Greenkeeper recently who told me of his problems with the committee wanting to make changes to the course, he was flat out refusing to make any of the changes as it would compromise the original James Braid Design. This guy presents this golf course to the highest standards and has done great work to restore original features but who knows what would happen to the golf course if this strong character was not there and the committee had their way.....

[Steven Blake]

JMEvensky,

So the super is not at the green committee meetings most of the time?? That is a shame! So the GM and members decide all the in's and out's without the Super most of the time.  How many mistakes get made with that chain of command?

So the super does not step on the GM's toes.... What knowledge does the GM have on matters relating to Greens and Grounds? The best TEAMS are those where people interject their ideas freely.  I think people have to be allowed to give their professional opinion and not be afraid of ridicule.  After all the members get the final say, if they don’t have all of the information how can they make an informed decision if the people in charge are not giving their honest assesments… that’s what they get paid to  do … No?

[Leo Barber]

I think its one of the key roles of any Supt to steer his committee.  Establishing good policy to begin with, with regards to course setup and objectives is fundimental to help manage both parties. 

[Mike_Young]

The supt will always influence green committees tremendously.  So make sure you have a supt that can do what is needed.  For example:  you want native areas , native sand and natural cart pathss and the supt want four different heights of rough with new cart paths and bright white sand.  There will be arguments.  I can show you examples of supts at older courses who have gone thru the ranks there and have never traveled to see the work of the original architect at other sites and have no idea how to care for the course.  Yet they will still win.  And trees will usually be one of their big arguments.  Don't get me started.   AND before someone says it...there are many supts who can work a green comm in the right direction...I'm speaking of the goofy ones...

[Mark Chaplin]

Six or seven members of a greens committee, what do they all do???

At my club it's a triangle between the Superintendent (skills & manpower), STRI agronomist (technical expertise) & the Course Director who agrees/sets strategy and provides the finance.

JME excluding the Superintendent from meetings is like excluding the finance director from budgeting meetings, crazy.

[Anthony_Nysse]

Thankfully, I answer to the Greens Committee Chairman. He heads the Green Committee, which gives suggestions/comments to the Chair. We meet Nov-April. The bi laws of the club ensure that the Supt does not answer to a GM. Thankfully this has worked, as all managers (Pro, GM and Supt) answer to a Committee or Committee Chair and the Chair reports to the BOG.

[JMEvensky]

JME excluding the Superintendent from meetings is like excluding the finance director from budgeting meetings, crazy.

Most sentient beings understand this.Sadly,we have none currently on our Board.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

This is only a few posts old, but already we are seeing huge variety of influence - or lack of it.

Now, we here, who know better than anybody else (or so we claim) about all matters relating to golf course architecture, its history, course maintenance and everything else from mole draining to guano fertlisers, how do we educate those who run golf courses how to maintain them to perfection?

What is perfection?

Who do you target, as an outsider, to stop watering fairways?

These are only the tip of the iceberg.

Who tells Sunningdale to get rid of 100,000 trees to restore it to what the Old Course was when it was built?

Why should we do so? Isn't it terrifically good as it is?

[Joel_Stewart]

This is only a few posts old, but already we are seeing huge variety of influence - or lack of it.

I tend to disagree and echo what Mike Young said.  The supers and GM's greatly influence the green committees.   Mark, I would like to know where you are going with this?

At my former club, the superintendent basically ran the green committee and did what ever he wanted.  He basically feels the green committee are a bunch of guys in his way and he'll do what he feels is the right thing.  Sometimes on larger issues he had to gain approval but he quietly went behind the back of any green committee member or board member that may question him and gained the approval before a vote.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Joel,

I'm not looking at individual clubs and their particular situations, but, rather, at the bigger issue of changes to golf courses. Who is influential in tree management, bunker replacement, etc? Are supers, course managers, head greenkeepers equipped or empowered to argue the case for such major events? Are they able or allowed to become involved in such discussion?

'Why have they been allowed to get away with this?"

"Why don't they do this?"

These are the questions most asked here on GCA.

Would supers who might support these views be in a position to influence these decisions?

Are they necessarily the right people to influence those decisions?

[Dave Greene]

I think the superintendent and green chairman should be the leaders in this effort. That does not mean others will not have meaningful input and at the same time some supers and some green chairmen may not understand what YOUR course is all about even if they can do a good job growing fine turf. ALL involved should be willing to do some home work on the subject or don't get involved. Due to the fact that over the years a club will have both good and not so good people in these positions it is very important to create a master plan that fits your course and a maintenance guideline to go with it. Hopefully this will smooth out the rough edges and as time goes by this will help to keep future people in charge from straying too far from the ranch. I suggest getting a good golf course architect involved that knows and understands the history of your course and have that architect visit periodically. 

[Mike_Young]

Tony N seems to have the ideal situation. 
I don't know where this thread is supposed to go but one had better hope the supt has some influence over the green committee.  BUT the most critical part of this entire equation is in hiring the right supt for the particular course....

[Patrick_Mucci]

It depends upon the culture and ownership of the club.

JME's club sounds like it may not be member owned.
That's alot of power to put in the hands of a GM.

Superintendents usually have a tremendous influence.
That influence increases at clubs who rotate their Presidents and Committee Chairs every year or so.

Unfortunately, at clubs with revolving door leadership the Superintendent has to re-educate the incoming chair and committee every year or so, a task he shouldn't be burdened with.

At dictatorships, there's more stability, thus alot of the noise and nonsense is absent and serious, meaningful work can get done.

Because the Superintendent is the data and knowledge base, any Chairman with a brain needs to rely on his expertise.

However, I would tend to confine my remarks to the agronomic and maintainance arena.

When it comes to architecture, an outside professional, a consulting architect should be retained to work with the Superintendent, Chair, Committee and Board.

[Steve Okula]

In my experience, the GCS wins some and loses some. I have to be willing to compromise on certain issues and know when to stand firm on others - I need to pick my battles. For example, I was able to renovate 25 bunkers this year according to my own wishes, but I'm currently involved in a project to rebuild a practice chipping green that I think is totally unnecessary and a waste of resources, and I have let the club know that in no uncertain terms, but the committee insisted. 

[Joel_Stewart]

In my experience, the GCS wins some and loses some. I have to be willing to compromise on certain issues and know when to stand firm on others - I need to pick my battles. For example, I was able to renovate 25 bunkers this year according to my own wishes, but I'm currently involved in a project to rebuild a practice chipping green that I think is totally unnecessary and a waste of resources, and I have let the club know that in no uncertain terms, but the committee insisted. 

Hopefully it's a joint effort by everyone, the super, the board and green committee.  I agree with Steve, you have to pick your battles with a long term approach.

Steve.  That chipping green was probably somebody's pet and it probably looks good.  I play a fair amount at a private club that is awful yet they built a huge new practice green last year and this year rebuilt the driving range, both of which are very nice.  Meanwhile the course itself is a forest of over grown trees, the bunkers are awful and there are maybe 4 strains of grass growing with kikuya starting to take over everything.  The problem is they need board approval to make changes to the course and they can't agree on anything.   FYI, the GM pushed the rebuild of the range and the new practice green.

[Jon Wiggett]

This is only a few posts old, but already we are seeing huge variety of influence - or lack of it.

Now, we here, who know better than anybody else (or so we claim) about all matters relating to golf course architecture, its history, course maintenance and everything else from mole draining to guano fertlisers, how do we educate those who run golf courses how to maintain them to perfection?

What is perfection?

Who do you target, as an outsider, to stop watering fairways?

These are only the tip of the iceberg.

Who tells Sunningdale to get rid of 100,000 trees to restore it to what the Old Course was when it was built?

Why should we do so? Isn't it terrifically good as it is?

in my opinion, the trees at Sunningdale are probably not due to anybodies influence but rather that of nature so there is probably no one you could talk to as it does not seem to interest the people who have influence. People have a tendency to forget how things were and often assume that how a course looks is how it always did. This in turn means most think that if you do nothing to a course it will stay the same.

Most people like the intimacy of tree lined courses until they experience the grandeur of wide open vistas on treeless courses. Very few courses are treeless however.

Good and motivated greenkeepers will not often stay long enough at a course small enough to allow them a fairly free hand to stamp their signature on it. They will usually be enticed away to a bigger club where things are already set in stone. Significant changes usually only happen at a club where one person has the say. Committees are usually very passive. Having said that some very good greenkeepers do stay and some committees are active.

The problem with the question in the threads title is that it is asking for one answer when in truth every club is different and so every answer you can think of is probably true of one club somewhere 

Jon

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Jon,

Thanks for your contribution. I was expecting a wide variety of responses - those clubs with which I have some familiarity all seem to be very different in their constitutions and views.

[Rich Goodale]

Green Committees, Supers and Course Managers all have varying degrees of skill, but only a miniscule percentage of any of them have any sort of pro-active vision, much less actual power to implement whatever vision they have.  As a result, we have far too much mediocrity and far too little excitement in the courses we play.

[David Royer]

I have served as vice-chair and incoming chair this coming season.  I really see it as a partnership.  We discuss projects, tree removal, tee upgrades, etc.  The biggest value of the committee is to serve as communicators to the differing elements of the club on what and why issues may be occuring. The leadership of the committee with the super sets the agenda, the super decides the timetable.  Bottom line if you have a great super, you cover their back.

[JMEvensky]

JME's club sounds like it may not be member owned.
That's alot of power to put in the hands of a GM.

Bad guess.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I presume that most Supers etc are members of a professional society or association. Do these associations issue any sort of guidelines on course maintenance which takes into account heritage?