Our USGA at work

[Brad Klein]

I think there some misunderstanding about when the USGA Green Section is called in. These turf advisory reports are done all of the time. The staff is overworked. They are salaried, and there are no kickbacks that I have ever heard about or even hear to be alleged by people who know the operation. But Mike Young has identified a very important issue, namely that in seeking expert advise by peope who see a wide range of regional agronomic problems (Pat Mucci, that's why their service is valuable, and why superintendents invariably appreciate and benefit from it) the advice is usually of a rather narrow sort that tends to reinforce or to be consistent with established practice. In other words, it's technical, problem solving, not structural, of the sort that might say you have a fundamental problem or that you need to rethink a basic way of doing things.

What's really interesting is, as Mike Young suggests, the Green Section advisory staff are very cautious politically never to rock the boat.

Why don't clubs go to outside, independent agronomic experts? There aren't many good ones (it's very hard to make a good living that way, as even well-paid agronomists have found.) Also, there's even less quality control from them about issues behind the scenes regarding relations with suppliers and skilled people in the business.

Don't get me wrong. There are some brilliant minds out there who are amazingly reliable. The whole idea of kickbcks is lkaughable given the realtively small size of the goods and servcies invovled anyway - too much to risk and not enough to gain. And overall, the overwhelming majority of people in this whole sector of the business are good technical experts who are trying hard and who do an honest job. But politically and economically, the USGA Green Service is often an easier and more comfortable choice for a club or a superintendent to make. And even when the outsider is brought in, the superintendent is always part of the process.

[Mike_Young]

Mike Benham,
The USGA sevice is a service that is almost second nature for clubs to bring in once a year.  It is a standard a schanging cups each day. It is almost expected of larger clubs in our area and a few other places.  Again, it is a CYA report.  Most supts never go against the grain of the other supts they speak with each day.  They have to stick together because the business they are in is so delicate.  And most of the other supts use USGA so we do.  Hell, they piss off one wife of one board member because of a bad lie in a bunker and you can be gone.  That is why I say our guy stays out of controversy.  He understands and has survived.  He definitely doesn't need USGA to tell him what to do.  Hell he might be getting 2003 results with a 1985 mower he has been able to keep in great shape while a 22 year old chef will be requiring a the newest state of the art chafing dish (and getting it)

BUT...he knows it is best to just do it and bring them in each year.

No, 99.9 percent of our members don't even know we have an annual USGA report and could care less, so it stirs no controversy.  

Our clubs controversies are over things like whether your memorial tree is nicer than mine etc.

[Brad Klein]

The REAL issue with Athens CC is that the Ross design has been covered up by years of absurd tree planting, stupid cart paths, shrunken greens and a new putting surface or three, moved bunkers, et al, and there is tremendous potental out there to recover all of the ground features. Problem is the members are totaly indifferent to the design, the clubhouse is a money pit, and all they seem to care about is socializing. I have rarely seen a membership so indifferent to what it has. Too bad the superintendent is so damned good in growing quality turfgrass. If they had really obvous problems, there might be some incentive to go in and Master Plan a longterm solution.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

He probably should have given a list of qualified contractors, but, if I was in attendence, I would have asked his opinion with respect to which of the firms did he feel did the best work.

Michael Whitaker,

I don't think you understand the nature of the USGA visits, the resulting report, and reference services.

When asked who is qualified in a given field, should the USGA agronomist stand mute, refusing to answer the question ?

Having forty years of experience with these visits, their reports and the regional agronomists involved, overwhelmingly they are positive and extremely useful.

I think your kickback allegation is irresponsible.

Can a mistake be made by an individual, certainly, but tell me, who amongst us conducts their business absent any mistakes ?

MDugger,

At this level, the USGA isn't a monolithic organization, it's a regional agronomist, a single individual, consulting with the superintendents at each club.

The club has to initiate and contact the USGA agronomist and request a visit, the USGA agronomist doesn't solicit the club.

This has and continues to be a valueable service.

Unfortunately, many want to jump on the USGA and bash them for the slightest, perceived, miscue, without waiting until all the facts are in.  Prefering, instead, to take a single isolated incident and magnify it to ridiculous proportions.

I don't understand this almost constant desire to bash the USGA.  If there is a specific area that they have failed in, address that issue, not the entire organization and all of the people who have devoted their time and efforts to preserve and better golf.

I've previously been critical of letting the equipment issue get away from them, but that's one issue, not every issue or the entire organization, which has done a great job over the years.

Brad Klein,

It sounds as though the REAL issue is as you indicate, internally, Athens CC.

For a superintendent to remain at one club for 40 years is remarkable.  He probably possesses a wealth of knowledge regarding changes to the golf course over those 40 years, together with unparalleled knowledge of the agronomic conditions on the golf course.  It would seem to me that if he called in the USGA regional agronomist, that he knew and continues to know what he's doing.

A 1,000 member club must have a variety of factions.
Where is a dictator when you need one ?

[Mike Benham]

Does anyone know what percentage of the USGA's budget is spent on the Green Section (turf issues, the local agronomist, etc.)?

Specifically, do they spend more money on the Green Section, Equipment or the Rules of the Game?

Their motto is "The USGA acts in the best interests of the game for the continued enjoyment for those who love and play it".

Do you think their priority is:

1. Rules
2. Green Section
3. Equipment

[Lou_Duran]

And what do you suggest they should be, Mr. Benham?

For me:

1), 2), and 3) Tightly control balls and equipment- develop member concensus on the importance of harnessing the arms race and make the industry aware in no uncertain terms that the ENTIRE financial strength of the USGA is behind the enforcement of its rules, formally through the courts and informally through its member clubs.  

4) emphasis on educating the public through the member clubs on the benefits of walking (including a voluntary moratorium on mandatory riding), etiquette, customs, and behavior.

5) simplification of rules

6) turf science initiatives


It bothers me only slightly that the USGA is in the business of providing consulting services for a fee.  I am assuming that they seek to break-even on this endeavor, while collecting volumes of very useful data.  If the private sector (including university research facilities) can't provide those services economically, I am glad that the USGA is doing it.  That a club would pay $2,000 for a single consultation suggests that the services are valuable and desired by the industry.   The issue of accepting the single supplier or contractor recommendation is one for the club to resolve.  The ultimate decision as whether to expand the search should be based on several factors including the reputation of and trust in the agronomist, the integrity of the selector (green committee, club dictator, owners, etc.), and probably the dollar value of the recommended solution.  There are many examples locally of why getting three bids and picking the lowest bidder is typically not a good approach.

[Tom_Doak]

Unfortunately this sort of thing happens a lot:  we've had several calls from superintendents or green chairmen who tell us we've been recommended by the USGA agronomist [or by the Donald Ross Society, whose bylaws also prohibit the society from making such recommendations].

I'm sure the agronomists mean well in doing so, and that they are recommending people who do good work instead of someone who will buy them a nice dinner in return.  But it does straddle ethical lines.

Since I am one of about 500 members of the USGA Green Section Committee, I guess it's something I should bring up to the group, and I will.

I do believe the Green Section has done a lot of good work for the game in years past, but I'm also concerned that some of their agronomists are very prone to recommend expensive reconstruction, and that they never relent in recommending the construction of USGA greens even where native soil greens have worked fine for many years.  They have their sacred cows, which is why we try to get our clients to use independent agronomists on some jobs.

[Mike Benham]

And what do you suggest they should be, Mr. Benham?

I would be pretty close to yours except that I think the equipment issue is a short term probelm that once resolved will fall to the middle of the list.  I would expand #4 to include all aspects of the game including walking, etiquette, the history, the enviroment ...

I not sure that the emphasis on the Green Section should really be of great importance to the USGA.  I would assume that a professional organization such as the GCSAA would be the proper location for the Green Section.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
Please understand that this is a written report and then a presentation meeting.  And yes, the USGA does solicit these visits.
While there may be some good or much good from these visits...I tend to lean toward what TD says....use a private agronomist.....I try to never listen to a party that has nothing at stake in the issue.....and the USGA never does.....
As TD says they push hard the USGA green which says enough.  If you are a regional person that doesn't use that type of green in a cases then they can easily try to berate your method.  As many of us know most committees and members think that the solution to all is a USGA green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I'm not sure I understand the "push the USGA green" comment.

I don't understand why an agronomist would push building a green unlike all of the others ?  Or, are you referencing a new course with 19 new greens ?

While I understand the written report, I don't understand the presentation aspect.  Could you expand on this.

Thanks

[Robert_Walker]

I think Mike is talking about USGA Green Construction specifications.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Robert Walker,

I understand that, but in what context ?

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
What I meant by "pushing the USGA green"  was that up until recently I would think it suffices to say they "lookrd down or considered your product as an architect inferior if you built something less than a USGA green.  Now they are beig forced to reconsider.
And yes I was speaking of 18 greens not building one with a different medium than the other 17.
I still have copies of reports from 10 years ago where they came in and told an owner that he could not grow grass on his greens because of our specification.  Which was a california spec.  But the owner only had a certain budget...and today those same greens are perfect.