Should the golf course superintendent of a classic course love architecture?

[mike_malone]

 While I don’t think it’s necessary I do find it helpful.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Mike,


This is directly from a reference letter I recently wrote for an assistant superintendent I've worked with, who's pursuing a head job:


"In my experience, knowledge of the game’s history and an understanding of golf architecture is an intangible that takes a select few golf course superintendents a notch above the rest."

[John Jeffreys]

Appreciate, respect, uphold intent of the architect.

[Craig Sweet]

John Jeffreys..."Appreciate, respect, uphold intent of the architect."   
[/size][/color]
[/size]So long as the members do....[/color]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Does he need to if he is working at, say, a Dye course, or some other modern design?

[Matt Wharton]

As both a golf course superintendent and a connoisseur of classic golf course architecture I can say my affinity for the golden age does not make me a better agronomist.  However there is more to being a golf course superintendent than agronomy and Mr. Jeffreys is correct when he simply states "appreciate, respect, and uphold the intent of the architect."  I think a superintendent that loves classic architecture is better suited when possible to protect the course from the whims and passing fancies of committees that do not have the best interest of the course/membership at heart.  Most superintendents have a connection to the course/property they manage and over time this connection can develop into a deeper love and appreciation for its roots and history, thus one doesn't need to love classic architecture right away in order to eventually come to love and appreciate it if/when managing a classic course.


My two cents,

[Jay Mickle]

Given some of the egregious alterations that have taken place over time to some fine golden age courses I believe that at very least an appreciation of the original architectural intent is important. 

[Joe Hancock]

As anyone who is married will concur, it is one thing to love, and quite another to understand.....

[Ed Brzezowski]

He/she better. Otherwise you will have Mrs. Haversham planting azaleas everywhere.

A good working knowledge is a must to avoid having some members do something really stupid to the course.

They should be a defender of good solid plans.

[Thomas Dai]

He/she better. Otherwise you will have Mrs. Haversham planting azaleas everywhere.
A good working knowledge is a must to avoid having some members do something really stupid to the course.
They should be a defender of good solid plans.

+1
atb

[Sean_Tully]

I am an outlier in this conversation , I have always been interested in GCA and love a good conversation anytime. That said, I recognize a need to understand ones course, and the architectural intent of the architect(s) is important to understand, but one does not need to love it. As a Superintendent, we need to know a lot about our golf course and I believe that includes its architecture. We are responsible to maintain it, and in a lot of cases make changes to it. Not all courses are the same and removing a bunker on a municipal course doesn't rate to the removal of a bunker at say Merion! The Super should have a voice in the conversation; not just about how much it costs to maintain the bunker, what issues there are with said bunker, and how much it will cost to rebuild or remove it. We don't have to be the expert on the course, that is what the architect is for to balance the conversation. We need to know enough about the course and changes made to it to add context to the conversation held with course owners, GM's, Green Committees, and Architects. Just like our Golf Pro's that are asked to comment on how a bunker will be perceived by different levels of golfers. We need to be the experts of our course on a wide ranch of topics and architecture should be right up there at the top.


I love to see other Super's interest in GCA grow and I make a point to ask most Supers and Assistants who I talk with who designed their course. I did this once at a busy lunch break at our Turf Industry Show. I mentioned that Alister MacKenzie designed my course and an Assistant I was talking with responded by saying that MacKenzie designed his course too! I didn't mean to come down on him so hard for not knowing who designed his course, but I think the rest of the table was a little nervous when I asked them where they worked and who had designed their course! If we are going to be responsible for a golf course no matter the architectural merits or lack of, we should know the reason we are maintaining it. There is a playability issue of course, but there is clearly a need to have a seasoned set of eyes watching the course and considering its architecture as they work on the playability of the course, they go hand in hand! No matter how good a course is conditioned, a great golf course will always be more about the architecture than how fast the greens are. One doesn't need the other to define itself.


Tully

[mike_malone]

I am an outlier in this conversation , I have always been interested in GCA and love a good conversation anytime. That said, I recognize a need to understand ones course, and the architectural intent of the architect(s) is important to understand, but one does not need to love it. As a Superintendent, we need to know a lot about our golf course and I believe that includes its architecture. We are responsible to maintain it, and in a lot of cases make changes to it. Not all courses are the same and removing a bunker on a municipal course doesn't rate to the removal of a bunker at say Merion! The Super should have a voice in the conversation; not just about how much it costs to maintain the bunker, what issues there are with said bunker, and how much it will cost to rebuild or remove it. We don't have to be the expert on the course, that is what the architect is for to balance the conversation. We need to know enough about the course and changes made to it to add context to the conversation held with course owners, GM's, Green Committees, and Architects. Just like our Golf Pro's that are asked to comment on how a bunker will be perceived by different levels of golfers. We need to be the experts of our course on a wide ranch of topics and architecture should be right up there at the top.


I love to see other Super's interest in GCA grow and I make a point to ask most Supers and Assistants who I talk with who designed their course. I did this once at a busy lunch break at our Turf Industry Show. I mentioned that Alister MacKenzie designed my course and an Assistant I was talking with responded by saying that MacKenzie designed his course too! I didn't mean to come down on him so hard for not knowing who designed his course, but I think the rest of the table was a little nervous when I asked them where they worked and who had designed their course! If we are going to be responsible for a golf course no matter the architectural merits or lack of, we should know the reason we are maintaining it. There is a playability issue of course, but there is clearly a need to have a seasoned set of eyes watching the course and considering its architecture as they work on the playability of the course, they go hand in hand! No matter how good a course is conditioned, a great golf course will always be more about the architecture than how fast the greens are. One doesn't need the other to define itself.


Tully

Well, thank you for that.

[Jim Sherma]

While the original premise would be a nice bonus I think it is more important that a superintendent has an understanding of what constitutes a good playing surface. Couple this with a good vision of how you want the course to visually be presented and I think you're most of the way there.


The worst is a very good to great course with always soft greens shrinking within the original green pads and dismal straight mowing lines stranding the fairway bunkers 10-20 yards in the rough. A situation I am sadly familiar with.

[Don Mahaffey]

As long as he/she loves golf more than grass, the rest will fall into place.

[Jim Sherma]

Don - I agree. In my admittedly very small first hand sample I've found that supers who are better players tend to present better playing surfaces. While those that either don't play or are poor golfers tend to water more and go for deep green at all costs.

[Joel_Stewart]

As long as he/she loves golf more than grass, the rest will fall into place.

Not true at least in my case.


The former super, now GM at Olympic is a terrible player but knows how to grow grass. Sadly he has no interest in classic architecture and is only interested in the RTJ school of long and hard must be good.

[Anthony_Nysse]

As long as he/she loves golf more than grass, the rest will fall into place.

  Love golf or love playing golf? While it's important to play the product, there are some that abuse the privilege and seem to golf more than they grow grass.
  It's a balance, yes, but it gets abused from time to time. Some of the best turf growers in our business hardly ever play, yet their courses are deemed as the top conditioned courses in the country.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
Understanding classic architecture and understanding "how an architect wants a course presented" can be two different things.  It sure helps to understand the architecture but what is most important is that the superintendent understands (and appreciates) the latter.   


I have walked away from projects because I felt the superintendent had no interest or appreciation for what we felt needed to be done to improve a golf course and/or how it should be maintained. 
Mark

[Don Mahaffey]

As long as he/she loves golf more than grass, the rest will fall into place.

  Love golf or love playing golf? While it's important to play the product, there are some that abuse the privilege and seem to golf more than they grow grass.
  It's a balance, yes, but it gets abused from time to time. Some of the best turf growers in our business hardly ever play, yet their courses are deemed as the top conditioned courses in the country.

Tony, what is deemed the best isn’t always so in my eyes, but I’m only one opinion. What I mean is we must always remember that prepping a surface for the GAME is what matters.  I think you know what I mean.

[mike_malone]

Mike,
Understanding classic architecture and understanding "how an architect wants a course presented" can be two different things.  It sure helps to understand the architecture but what is most important is that the superintendent understands (and appreciates) the latter.   


I have walked away from projects because I felt the superintendent had no interest or appreciation for what we felt needed to be done to improve a golf course and/or how it should be maintained. 
Mark

Mark,


The way it should be maintained is the role of the gcs in classic architecture preservation. Amateurs like me can raise questions as a gadfly. Architects like you do the hard research and create the plans.

[mike_malone]

 The reason I ask for love is because it drives the creativity and dedication needed to succeed. When it is just a job many lose interest.