[Dan Herrmann]

I was reading the Annual Message from Ran & Ben, and found myself focusing on this phrase:  "The value of a great Green Keeper".

Personally, the following traits define a great Green Keeper
He's a custodian of architecture; he keeps the course true to the architectural desires of the designer.  
He allows the course to play firm & fast.  
He sets the green speeds to be in sync with the intent of the designer.  
He's out there cutting grass and setting sprinkler computers.  
He's a scientist and an expert in drainage.
He is an entomologist.
He's a meteorologist.
He's a financial planner.
He's an HR department.
In the USA, he's often multilingual.
He loves the game, but doesn't have time to play.
He's forever learning new ways to solve problems.

Fortunately, my club (French Creek - Hanse) has such a gentleman in Bruce Cadenelli.    

Why not share some other traits of great Green Keepers and also share people you think are indeed, Great Green Keepers.

[JMEvensky]

A Great Green Keeper is adept at serving multiple masters simultaneously (each of whom knows much more about turfgrass management than he )--with a different set of masters every couple of years.

[RJ_Daley]

JME that is so true, unfortunately.  

Dan, is that the Cadinelli that used to be Pres. of GCSAA back 20 years ago.  There seems to be several brothers or Father/Son teams in GC Superintendency.  

I hesitate to name names, because praise in one quarter, such as our particular tastes in the stereotypical architectural reverence and original intent, F&F, brown is beautiful;  is the kiss of death at some misguided clubs and g committees.  

To say, I love your F&F brown patina, in some circles staffed with "Ted Knight" judge Smails types, would send the poor green keeper down the road.  

[Lou_Duran]

Good communication skills; adaptable/able to change course when the situation dictates; has a sense of humor; able to control what rattles in his mind and reaches his tongue; has very thick skin; stays current with the science and industry.  Integrity.

[Dan Herrmann]

RJ - Close.  Bruce is the brother of the guy that was the president of the GCSAA.  If I recall correctly, there's another Cadenelli brother in the business. 

[RJ_Daley]

Yeah, it was Steve C.  Penn State guys?

[Pete_Pittock]

owns two chain saws, named lightning and thunder
i.e.
has a tree management program

[Mike_Young]

two things I have been told:
you'll never be able to define a great green keeper until you had one
AND
a really good green keeper is much less expensive than a mediocre one.

[JESII]

Mike, I think that's where the greatness should really be understood...the value they deliver to the bottom line of their course.

Dan's list of items notwithstanding, the great greenkeepers deliver playing conditions that meet or exceed expectations for a greater percentage of days than others.

When a system comes through that forces some courses to close but your course is open because of a variety of factors, the superintendent is proving their value. Similarly, the conversation about Ballyneal switching grasses on their greens with no interruption of play is a sign of mastery in my opinion.

[JMEvensky]

a really good green keeper is much less expensive than a mediocre one.

+1000

[Sean McCue]

A Great Green Keeper is adept at serving multiple masters simultaneously (each of whom knows much more about turfgrass management than he )--with a different set of masters every couple of years.

What he said ^^

[Matt Day]

As a gm of a busy public facility my superintendent is extremely valuable, works wonders with a small staff in a busy work environment. Makes my job a lot easier 

[Randy Thompson]

Yeah, it was Steve C.  Penn State guys?

I remember them from my New England days(thirty five eyars ago), they were supers in Connecticut at the time. I thought they were from the Stockbridge program, can anyone confirm their schooling?

[mike_malone]

The course should not depend on a great green keeper. It should be maintained such that any capable pro can handle the job.

[Don_Mahaffey]

The course should not depend on a great green keeper. It should be maintained such that any capable pro can handle the job.

And every QB should play like Tom Brady

[mike_malone]

Offenses should be designed that can win without Brady. Ravens did it last year. I'm not against having a great keeper ; I'm against depending on one. 

[Don_Mahaffey]

Offenses should be designed that can win without Brady. Ravens did it last year. I'm not against having a great keeper ; I'm against depending on one. 

You can design the best offense possible, but if you have Blaine Gabbert at QB against a good defense... good luck with that.

The title of the thread was "The value of a great Green Keeper".
Your idea that you can just plug anyone in and get the great result, over the long haul, is not the reality I know.

[Sam Morrow]

The course should not depend on a great green keeper. It should be maintained such that any capable pro can handle the job.

Doesn't it need a great greenskeeper in the first place to maintain it so that any capable pro can handle it?

[Steve Okula]

The course should not depend on a great green keeper. It should be maintained such that any capable pro can handle the job.

Logical absurdities are amusing.

[Sean_A]

While I agaree with the sentiments of Mayday, its difficult to overstate the value of a great green keeper.  Then again, we all seem to have different ideas of course presentation so defining greatness is difficult at best.  Other than all the usual member this and member that stuff (CYA stuff really), I admire a green keeper who is constantly looking for savings so that money can be plowed into trying different ideas which are designed to offer a better and cheaper product over the long run - say five year plans.  

Ciao      

[Neil White]

I don't think the value of a great greenkeeper can ever be understated and it is fairly obvious when a course has someone who knows what they are doing at the helm.

The problem I foresee is when this great greenkeeper begins to develop a kind of 'god complex'.

At a well respected club local to myself the talented CM has undertaken a raft of alterations - many of which are not really in keeping with the course - and whilst he covers 99% of the list of qualities Dan listed in the OP, when it comes to - custodian of architecture; he keeps the course true to the architectural desires of the designer - I'm left scratching my head at some of the changes carried out.

[Thomas Dai]

Head Green-Keeper, the most important person at a golf club. If you've got a good one, treasure him, if you haven't got a good one, and regrettably this does sometimes happen, and the committee haven't got the strength of character to deal with the issue, oh dear......
ATB

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think the value of a great greenkeeper can ever be understated and it is fairly obvious when a course has someone who knows what they are doing at the helm.

The problem I foresee is when this great greenkeeper begins to develop a kind of 'god complex'.

At a well respected club local to myself the talented CM has undertaken a raft of alterations - many of which are not really in keeping with the course - and whilst he covers 99% of the list of qualities Dan listed in the OP, when it comes to - custodian of architecture; he keeps the course true to the architectural desires of the designer - I'm left scratching my head at some of the changes carried out.

I had refrained from comment here until someone brought up this point.  I've seen the same thing myself several times ... a greenkeeper who ticks every other box on Dan's checklist so he is assumed to know something about architecture, too ... but he's really tone deaf with regards to the architecture and starts messing it up.  There is no reason to assume that someone knowledgable about turf management and people management is necessarily knowledgable about golf course design ... or shares the same philosophy of design as the architect who built the course.  It's probably only true about half the time.

You see less of this today because most prominent clubs in the U.S. have a consulting architect [although, from experience, it can be hard for the consultant to call out the in-house work being done, when the overall success of the course depends on the star greenkeeper].  But it happens.  We've had a great run in recent years in finding some great greenkeepers to work on our new projects from the ground up, so if they don't know much about our philosophy of design at the start of the project, they learn it by the time we're gone.

The right guy for the right project is magic.  I still love Dave Wilber's analogy that if the golf course is like one of the architect's daughters, the superintendent is the guy they'll marry ... you we all pray that they find the right guy.

[Tim Martin]

I don't think the value of a great greenkeeper can ever be understated and it is fairly obvious when a course has someone who knows what they are doing at the helm.

The problem I foresee is when this great greenkeeper begins to develop a kind of 'god complex'.

At a well respected club local to myself the talented CM has undertaken a raft of alterations - many of which are not really in keeping with the course - and whilst he covers 99% of the list of qualities Dan listed in the OP, when it comes to - custodian of architecture; he keeps the course true to the architectural desires of the designer - I'm left scratching my head at some of the changes carried out.

I had refrained from comment here until someone brought up this point.  I've seen the same thing myself several times ... a greenkeeper who ticks every other box on Dan's checklist so he is assumed to know something about architecture, too ... but he's really tone deaf with regards to the architecture and starts messing it up.  There is no reason to assume that someone knowledgable about turf management and people management is necessarily knowledgable about golf course design ... or shares the same philosophy of design as the architect who built the course.  It's probably only true about half the time.

You see less of this today because most prominent clubs in the U.S. have a consulting architect [although, from experience, it can be hard for the consultant to call out the in-house work being done, when the overall success of the course depends on the star greenkeeper].  But it happens.  We've had a great run in recent years in finding some great greenkeepers to work on our new projects from the ground up, so if they don't know much about our philosophy of design at the start of the project, they learn it by the time we're gone.

The right guy for the right project is magic.  I still love Dave Wilber's analogy that if the golf course is like one of the architect's daughters, the superintendent is the guy they'll marry ... you we all pray that they find the right guy.

Yale is a pretty good example of the scenario highlighted above where a long time Green Keeper was given the authority to make architectural changes that flew in the face of what Mac/Raynor had intended. On the flip side the golf course has had original features and playing characteristics restored by the very capable and talented current Green Keeper Scott Ramsay over the last ten years. Lucky for the members that Scott's vision continues to evolve as time marches on.

[mike_malone]

The definition of a great green keeper is not even clear.Private clubs in particular are so fickle that it is a moving target. I am in no way against highly competent supers but am against the unpredictable bosses they answer to. If we found a happier middle more supers could be great.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()