How much should a green keeper know about architecture?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Seriously....(specifically applicable to Golden Era courses....sorry.)


The average greens committee is riddled with "arm-chair hobbyists" (ahem, like me...;-) who sometimes can do more harm than good....


When committees should serve as "ambassadors of the course to the membership" (per the USGA guide), they far too often meddle in the origins and future architectural heritage of their course.


Do green keepers and superintendents study architecture? Should they?
Is this a topic that is covered at their industry conferences?
To what extent should a green keeper have a firm understanding of his/her courses' history?
Should this understanding be incorportaed into regular maintenance practices somehow?


Lastly, what is the effect of a green keeper who is perhaps unconcerned with the architectural  heritage of the course he oversees?

[Tom_Doak]

A greenkeeper's role is critical in helping to protect the design and playing values of the course he manages.  On many recent projects we've been fortunate to hire the superintendent early, and spend a lot of time with him through the process of construction, so he understands our view of how the course ought to play.


On older courses, hopefully the greenkeeper is part of a team with a consulting architect.  I'm sure there are some who don't think they need a consultant -- I have dealt with a few -- but sometimes they wind up taking the course in a direction it maybe shouldn't go, because of their biases as a golfer [or their relationship with an influential member whom they can't say no to].

[Kalen Braley]

If Golf is like any other industry where wages are constantly being pushed to the floor, its hard to see where many will bring the extra's like caring for the course history and preservation of design intent to their daily work place.

I looked up green keeper wages on payscale.com and it doesn't look like they make much more than fast food workers....

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Greenskeeper/Hourly_Rate

[Mike_Young]

This will catch some flack but it is something that happens much more than some may think.  When you are dealing with the average course in the US and not some of the top clubs it is difficult to argue architect with local supt.  Many don't want you coming in an telling them what to do and are very protective.  I've seen some where their peers all use the same guy and I actually had a golf professional tell me he wanted to have someone who had actually designed and built courses instead of someone who had built a few greens and bunkers thell them what they needed but hat would be difficult.  And the reason was that the green committee allows the supt to choose the architect.  That happens a lot.  Again it is a case of where a supt has the ear of the committee everyday and often the committee is going to think he knows more about architecture than most archies.  Some may and a lot think they do.  Now before I'm lambasted....the supt is the most critical guy at a course and the most critical for the archie but it is a delicate balance.

[Ken Moum]

If Golf is like any other industry where wages are constantly being pushed to the floor, its hard to see where many will bring the extra's like caring for the course history and preservation of design intent to their daily work place.

I looked up green keeper wages on payscale.com and it doesn't look like they make much more than fast food workers....

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Greenskeeper/Hourly_Rate

I think he's talking about superintendents... which is a whole nother kettle of fish.


http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Golf_Course_Superintendent/Salary


Then there's GCSAA's survey of its members


In late 2014 and early 2015, GCSAA conducted a comprehensive compensation and benefits survey. More than 3,500 member superintendents responded (for a response rate of 41.8%), providing salary, budget, benefits and staffing information in support of the report

. [/size][/color]The average base salary for superintendents rose from $82,573 in 2013 to $85,204 in 2015, a 3.2% increase in the two-year period. For assistant superintendents, in 2015, the average base salary rose to $41,372 from $40, 138 in 2013, representing a 1.2% increase." [/color]Not exactly fast food wages. [/size]

[archie_struthers]

 




Golf season coming to the Mid Atlantic soon , woo woo!


The superintendent wears a lot of hats .  Agronomy is  first and foremost, but he (she) must understand pesticide application (stay licensed) , know basic construction techniques , fix broken irrigation  pipes , understand golfers and their peccadillos, train and motivate their troops to work hard for low wages , keep the peace , understand budgeting etc etc etc. and on and on and on .  Wow , they have  to be smart and willing to work really hard . You can't be good at this job part time.


It's great if your superintendent loves GCA and understands the right maintenance meld for your club. But it's not a pre-requisite for success. At the end of the day he needs to keep your course healthy , first and foremost!  With the right budget you can ask for more detail.


However , a good team can augment the superintendent relative to golf and architecture. If your course is busy on weekends , school your guy to make pins accessible and pay attention to the winds when setting up tee boxes. Your golf pro should be able to help in this regard. Often I would suggest charging the assistant with being a detail guy so someone with this bent is a great idea. This topic is so complicated you could analyze it for many pages , nice query .

[Sean_A]

Its not like understanding the playability of architecture is rocket science!  The super is the grass expert...if he can learn that stuff the archie side of things should be very easy to get a handle on.  For me, a super should absolutely understand the design history of his course.  If he knows his stuff and is a good communicator there is a decent chance the super can be instrumental in maintaining/recapturing original elements of the design or be better placed to see where improvements can be made. In some cases, the super is able to tie design to better maintenance practices. 


Ciao

[Terry Lavin]

A GCS should know enough to leave the architectural features alone. Plain and simple. Don't meddle.

[Steve Lapper]

A GCS should know enough to leave the architectural features alone. Plain and simple. Don't meddle.

Really Judge? You may well be correct in such an assessment for many, but our very own Brian Chapin has worked to expand some mowing lines and greens surrounds, focus on removing a few trees that never existed in Tilly's day and placed tees commensurate with the advent of the Pro V1 and metal woods. All of the aforementioned would likely be initial reactions from AWT should he surprise us and emerge from his grave.


I believe the answer lies in the middle. It's great to see a greens keeper educate steep themselves in the architecture, but self-restraint must remain a priority. Same for greens chairs and club presidents. Same even for most architects.

[PCCraig]

I don't know if you want a superintendent who also thinks he knows enough to moonlight as an architect. But I think it's ideal on a classic golf course to have a superintendent that appreciates classic golf course architecture and the history of the course he looks over. I think it's evident when a classic golf course is loved and appreciated by it's membership and superintendent. Those superintendents tend to know enough to understand the need a qualified architect's help via a master plan or at least guiding vision. 

[Jason Topp]

I think it is very important.  Superintendents have huge sway with green committees and significant input with the owner if there are no committees.  Many master plans are designed by an architect but implemented by the super as budget allows over several years.  The super will have a huge say in what portions of that plan are and are not implemented.   

I have also seen some tees added to courses by superintendents that are simply in the wrong spot and bunkers altered in a manner that eases maintenance but deprives the course of its most notable feature.    I have also seen many improvements to a design by recognizing crucial areas where drainage or other features were changed to allow a hole to play in a manner that it should.

[Thomas Dai]

I would suggest he/she would be best to know more than any member of the club/committee.......but then keep quiet about it.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

To my mind the job of a super is to present the golfer with the most enjoyable/best golfing challenge. Understanding the GCA is therefor paramount for this end followed by creating quality playing surfaces.

Jon

[Terry Lavin]

A GCS should know enough to leave the architectural features alone. Plain and simple. Don't meddle.

Really Judge? You may well be correct in such an assessment for many, but our very own Brian Chapin has worked to expand some mowing lines and greens surrounds, focus on removing a few trees that never existed in Tilly's day and placed tees commensurate with the advent of the Pro V1 and metal woods. All of the aforementioned would likely be initial reactions from AWT should he surprise us and emerge from his grave.


I believe the answer lies in the middle. It's great to see a greens keeper educate steep themselves in the architecture, but self-restraint must remain a priority. Same for greens chairs and club presidents. Same even for most architects.

I didn't mean to imply that knowledge was a bad thing, but rather to suggest that recognition of one's inadequate knowledge would help a superintendent avoid messing with the architectural features of a golf course.  Or as the doctors say, "first, do no harm."  A super with a modicum of knowledge about golf course architecture is pretty likely to avoid tampering with important features without getting input from a responsible architect.  That lessens the possibility of doing harm. 

[archie_struthers]

 




I think Terry and Thomas hit the nail on the head . Remember , superintendents often have wives ,kids and a mortgage to pay.

[John Kavanaugh]

The best supers maintain a course, the worst improve one.

[Stuart Hallett]

I'd say that not many know very much, but those who do still need outside help to avoid manipulation by influential members. As mentioned, a super has enough to deal with on a daily basis, thus a GCA can take some of the weight off his back.
In the event of in-house works, the practical greenkeeping aspect will always reign above architectural interest. Therefore, they need support, guidance and a different perspective of the golf course they see & maintain every day.


Once you have found some common ground, you then need to defend ideas in front of a few hundred budding architects at the club.

[Jeff_Mingay]

I agree with much of the above: The green-keeper is absolutely critical to every project. The need for agronomic understanding is a given. But clear and concise understanding of the golf architecture they're maintaining is incredibly important. When equal focus is given to genuinely and passionately maintaining the golf architecture with an understanding mind, a course rises above. 

Considering this fact, I'm continually amazed how little golf architecture is covered in college turf-grass programs.

[Matt Wharton]

It's been said to be a successful golf course superintendent (greenkeeper) one must play golf in order to see and experience the course and its conditions from the players perspective.  I agree playing one's course is critical to understanding the impact golf maintenance practices are having on playing conditions, however that doesn't necessarily mean a superintendent needs a handicap index of 3.1 to be a good superintendent.  I know many successful superintendents that enjoy playing the game with a wide range of handicaps, and I think we can draw a similarity to the architecture question.


In other words, golf course superintendents do not necessarily need to know and understand golf course architecture on the same level of the architect to properly care for and provide optimum playing conditions of their course.  However those superintendents that embrace the golf course architecture and design of their course will position themselves for success above those superintendents that do not.  I have spent the past 11 years caring for Carolina Golf Club and I have made every effort to read as much as I can about Donald Ross, talk to those with experience and knowledge about Mr. Ross, and travel and play as many Ross courses as I can throughout the Southeast in order to have a better understanding and working knowledge of the principles and philosophies of his work.


Some of my most fun and fond memories from the 2008 restoration was spending time with Kris Spence listening to him dictate the thought process and theory behind this feature, bunker, etc. and how the player should approach playing the hole.  I'm a golf junkie that happens to be blessed to be a superintendent.  I play, watch, read, collect, and etc. all things golf, but I also know many successful superintendents that do not approach the game the same way I do.


Thanks for letting me share!

[Lyndell Young]

I agree with Matt, I think it is important to understand the archies vision in the specific design.If possible first hand, in the case of ODG's study materials if available books etc. other designs completed as Matt mentioned and or remodel archies that understand certain designers characteristics.JMO