An Assistant Superintendent Thinks My Green Is Too Severe

[Tom_Doak]

I read an interview today in "Course Conditions," the magazine for the Michigan Golf Course Superintendents' Association, with a young man named Matt Shafer, the assistant superintendent at Lost Dunes -- not to be confused with the head superintendent at Merion, who has trained three of the best superintendents I work witho  But the fact that their names are the same will attract the attention of those important. 


Every month the magazine does a Q & A with someone in the industry.  Here are Matt's answers to two questions in the Q & A:


15.  If you could change any golf hole on your golf course without repercussion which one would it be?
   A.  The fourth green at Lost Dunes has a 9 foot drop from back to front.  I would like to see that monster redesigned.


16.  What are your opinions on green speed and the game of golf today?
   A.  I actually enjoy the challenge of getting our greens as fast as possible for several events a year and pushing them on weekends without too much sacrifice to plant health.  I have been in the industry less than 10 years so for me that's always been the discussion.  Managing golfer's perception that we should be able to keep them at championship speeds on a daily basis is the big challenge.  My answer to this may change if I can reach the next step in my career.




I have never met this Matt Shafer.  He's entitled to his own opinions on golf course architecture, although he should get his numbers right when talking about my 4th green at Lost Dunes ... the drop is severe, but it is more like seven feet than nine.  Anyway, if that's his take, then his response about getting the greens as fast as possible not only goes directly against the design intent of the course, but is a logical fallacy.  Why would you get a green super fast if you think it's too severe as it is?


Or, I guess maybe he thinks architects should build flat greens so assistant superintendents can show off how fast they can make them.


We debate green speeds and green contours a lot here.  I thought this exchange was informative to that discussion.  Most young superintendents prize green speed above all else, and our clients and their staff don't always care what the architect intended.

[Bob Montle]

This is very sad, if he is indicative of what the new generation is thinking.

FWIW, the most fun greens I have ever putted were on Machrihanish.
Undulating, slow and difficult.

"Only morons"     enjoy greens where an uphill put left just short of the cup will roll back at you.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,


Not asking you to go all Clint Eastwood on the guy, but do you think this is generational? The temperament needed for the best superintendents, in my experience, has as much to do with age as training.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,


Not asking you to go all Clint Eastwood on the guy, but do you think this is generational? The temperament needed for the best superintendents, in my experience, has as much to do with age as training.

I don't think it's generational, although for sure, what a 25-year-old considers a "fast" green is a bit different from what someone 55 years old can remember about the old standard.  But the three former assistants at Merion I mentioned are now superintendents at Chicago Golf, Shoreacres and The Loop, and two of them are well under 30.  They get their greens fast, too, but not at the expense of the design.

[Mark Pritchett]

Tom,


Do you think the young Supers prize the fast greens because they perceive this as what "retail golfer" desires?


Mark

[Keith Grande]

Tom,


Do you leave "suggested maintenance notes" for the holes to play as you designed them?  ie width of fairway, rough cut height, etc?

[PCCraig]

His views are probably more of the norm than the exception amoung all superintendants, if I had to guess.


Unfortuneatley, this is why so many people complain about greens with significant slope. I've heard many times people who say "you can't put a pin anywhere on the front half of the green, can't you just fold it back, add some dirt to flatten it, and fold it back in place?" When you suggest perhaps just slowing down the green speed, the same people look at you like you're an idiot.

[Peter Pallotta]

From this snippet, and from reading between the lines of many posts over the years, I think what few supers will say out loud but what in their heart of hearts they believe is something like this: "The architect has his name and career, and I have mine.  Architects can suggest and complain about maintenance practices all they want -- they're not the ones signing my pay cheques, or getting me my next job. Yes, I respect good design, and I understand it, and I know how to work with it and accentuate the architecture's strengths -- but fast greens are the way of the world now, and I want to be in this business a long time, and so when it comes right down to it I'm always gonna give the owner and my boss and the members what they want instead of what some old guy says he needs. (Maybe that old guy made a mistake in the first place, and now he wants me to risk my job just to cover up for him. Sorry - no way.) Besides, few golfers I've ever met even notice the "architecture", but every single one of them notices slow greens or dead grass. So I know what my job is -- get the greens as quick as possible, and keep them alive. Period." 

Can I blame supers for that line of thinking? Well, the purist and the idealist in me does; but I have worked in several disparate fields and in every one the majority of practitioners think/behave in precisely the same way, i.e. think inside as narrow a box as possible, and as short-term as you can, and most of all do what the boss wants in exactly the way he/she wants it done, since the boss represents the pay cheque, and the hoped-for progressively responsible career, and the "way of the world".

Of course, as has been discussed here many times, the architect's challenge is then having to decide whether to "accept this reality" and simply design less contoured greens right from the start, or whether to "fight the good fight" and hope that a more collaborative and designed-focused super is in charge.   
Peter   

[Josh Tarble]

I don't know...this seems to me more of a membership problem than a superintendent problem.  To me this portion of the quote is the most important:

"Managing golfer's perception that we should be able to keep them at championship speeds on a daily basis is the big challenge"

I'm guessing some of it is that he is mandated to keep them fast rather than choosing to keep them fast. 

[Jon Cavalier]

Here's the 4th green at Lost Dunes:







It's at the end of a par-5, so most players will have a short club in and a chance to hit the correct section of the green, and it's open across the entire front from the angle of the layup. I really liked this green and thought it was a lot of fun - don't know why you'd want to neuter it.

[John Kavanaugh]

I always thought Lost Dunes was a manly man course where you expected extreme conditions on the greens. Any thing less would leave one to wonder why they made the drive.

[Terry Lavin]

My understanding of the  normal practice at LD has been to not push green speeds into the double digits to account for the awesome contours of the greens. I'd be surprised if the culture has suddenly changed.  Having said that, the fourth green has always been comment worthy. You really need to know where to miss on those greens. Personally, I love 'em.

[jeffwarne]

I don't know...this seems to me more of a membership problem than a superintendent problem.  To me this portion of the quote is the most important:

"Managing golfer's perception that we should be able to keep them at championship speeds on a daily basis is the big challenge"

I'm guessing some of it is that he is mandated to keep them fast rather than choosing to keep them fast.

spot on.
A golfer problem, not really a superintendant problem.


If greens are kept at "championship speed" daily, what's the point of the championship?


Sadly, this curmudgeon meets multiple poorly educated belt notchers on a more frequent basis than ever who measure their johnsons by WHERE they play, judging courses by conditioning and the speed of the greens-at the expense of interesting pins in the short run, and green design in the long run.


Doesn't help that nearly ALL players officials and commentators talk about is green speed at Oakmont-what a pity.



I will see I also see this also in sports (field hockey, soccer and more recently baseball) where the younger players all want to play on fake turf


Can't wait till #1 at Oakmont is driven, then 4 putted...then it will all make sense

[Mark Pritchett]

Jon,


Thanks for posting the Lost Dunes photo, that green looks like a lot of fun. 


Mark

[Mike_Young]

TD,

If one is an archie with less notoriety than yourself, it is common to see the supt totally ignore his intent...The supt has the owner's attention each day and if lucky the archie one day a year.  The archie can be resented easily...especially if the young supt came from some big signature course...
I am all for the supt and realize his importance but often the goal is to show the quickest greens and best conditions he can so that he can move on to the next job....
I was at a course I did 23 years ago this morning.  The course was on an island on the Ga coast and the elevation was only about 1o ft above sea level.  They had decided between themselves to raise the tee height on 5 tees over 20 ft so that golfers could see better.  Even had cart paths to the top of the hills....hey the owner can do as he pleases but it was a lot of money that could have gone elsewhere...

[Ken Fry]

Tom,

Over the years, you have to agree the 4th green has caused the most controversy at Lost Dunes.  Hasn't Jeff approached you before about changing the green?  I wonder how much of this is how much he's hearing from players with loud voices.

Personally, I've always loved the 4th green.  The hole is a reachable par 5 for many players but the green and angles into the green provide numerous approach/recovery options.  What I've always wondered is if the green was surrounded by rough that would hold shots up on the slopes instead of the fairway height grass that shrugs shots off if that would change player's minds.  That's certainly not something I would ever like to see but I think the shaved slope on the left of the green causes as much controversy as the slopes of the green.

Ken

[Don Mahaffey]

It is a common opinion.
Flatten them out and speed them up is the default position in golf maintenance. Which of course only puts way more emphasis on speed because there is no interest on flat greens unless they are super fast. A stupid cycle followed by way too many.

Luckily there are few free thinkers out there and I think it pays off for them as while the flat and fast crown may be the majority, the jobs supported by the minority are better. Only challenge being making sure you get a free thinker to match up with your contoured greens.   

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom,


I distinctly remember spending time with you on that green.


The kid should be shot.

[K Rafkin]

I've never played a course where the supt kept the greens at "championship" level speeds despite opposition of the membership.

[Don Mahaffey]

I've never played a course where the supt kept the greens at "championship" level speeds despite opposition of the membership.

Right, but what does "championship" level even mean?  Doesn't talking about how fast you can get you greens sound...dated? Fast greens in 2016? You better bring more than that to your next interview.

[Terry Lavin]

I'll just guess that the young man hasn't had much experience in the media department. I rather doubt that Jeff and the core cognoscenti at the club are interested in going all looney toons with green speeds at LD. There's enough genius, difficulty and hilarity at 9.5.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm guessing the kid just didn't understand what we all eventually learn....Never talk to the press.

[K Rafkin]

I've never played a course where the supt kept the greens at "championship" level speeds despite opposition of the membership.

Right, but what does "championship" level even mean?  Doesn't talking about how fast you can get you greens sound...dated? Fast greens in 2016? You better bring more than that to your next interview.

The beauty of using vague marketing terms like "championship level" is that they mean whatever you want them to mean.  In this guys case i assume it means too fast for the level of contour at LD.  Are fast greens no longer in style?  Because from what I can tell everyone still wants them, and everyone still wants to talk about them.  Even Joe Buck wants to talk about them.


You're fortunate enough to work for the best membership In the world.  If there was a Top 100 best memberships list your course would be sitting at the top.  I'd also say WP is one of the best conditioned courses I've ever played, but thats only possible because your membership is on your ass about making the rough greener and the greens faster. I'm sure you consider yourself lucky to have a membership that doesn't rank your ability by how fast you can get the greens.

[Jaeger Kovich]

.

[Don Mahaffey]

I've never played a course where the supt kept the greens at "championship" level speeds despite opposition of the membership.

Right, but what does "championship" level even mean?  Doesn't talking about how fast you can get you greens sound...dated? Fast greens in 2016? You better bring more than that to your next interview.

The beauty of using vague marketing terms like "championship level" is that they mean whatever you want them to mean.  In this guys case i assume it means too fast for the level of contour at LD.  Are fast greens no longer in style?  Because from what I can tell everyone still wants them, and everyone still wants to talk about them.  Even Joe Buck wants to talk about them.


You're fortunate enough to work for the best membership In the world.  If there was a Top 100 best memberships list your course would be sitting at the top.  I'd also say WP is one of the best conditioned courses I've ever played, but thats only possible because your membership is on your ass about making the rough greener and the greens faster. I'm sure you consider yourself lucky to have a membership that doesn't rank your ability by how fast you can get the greens.

Of course, and I try very hard to never try and tell anyone that WP is anywhere close to what goes on in the rest of golf. But, there are a few things that might translate.
Regardless of that, I was a supt for 15 years before WP and all too aware of the arms race to faster greens. I've also been involved in multiple projects over the last few years, and so my view is larger than just what happens here in the middle of nowhere TX.

Maybe my experience is unique, because in all the design development meetings I've been in, in all the meetings I've sat through, I have never heard the members/owners/stakeholders demand fast greens.  In fact, I've heard them say something along the lines of "keep them reasonable" quite a few times.   This idea that all the golfers are demanding crazy fast greens is just not true.  Certainly there is a voice for it, but I do not believe it to be the huge majority that some in golf use as justification for over the top maintenance practices.