A maintenance question

[TEPaul]

RJ;

It's probably true that many in the business (architecture, agronomy, construction) can be a little condescending sometimes. Agronomy, particularly, is a science I'm not much up on but the logic and commonsense aspect of it is what many of us on here should know more about.

The construction side of golf architecture is probably somewhat the same but the concept (concpetual design) side of golf architecture is the area I don't like to see people in the business act like they know an art or science that others don't or can't. History can easily prove that to be a fallacy as some of the most enduring and respected golf courses in the world were designed by that fascinating contingent known as the "amateur architect", and there's nothing the professional architect today can do to deny that. Probably the fact that early first time "amateurs" such as Crump, Leeds, Fownes, Wilson, or even Macdonald (NGLA his second course) spent more time and/or were unencumbered by some architectural convention is an important lesson to be learned.

[Dave_Wilber]

Tommy, RJ and Company...

Now boys...that comment (which was followed by one of these... ) was absolute tounge and cheek. Thanks however, for pointing out that my smile didn't seem to come through.

I happened to get an email from a superintendent pointing out the thread to me and we had a good chuckle on the phone about how good you guys are getting at turfhead stuff. So good in fact, that there wasn't much more that we turfheads thought we could offer. It wasn't an Us vs. Them point I was making, but I see where it could look like that.

Dick...seriously...you've never met me and that could be part of why you don't understand my tone.  I may be a wise ass at times, but I'm here often, have shared plenty and don't think I deserve the point you are making as to me being the Doctor of Talking Down. Please. If I had anything better to offer here, I would and I think most of you have seen that from me. Not often, but when I feel I can add something.

And for the record, the point you make about a thriving consultant industry isn't lost on me. I came up in the business from the trenches as a kid working on a construction project when he didn't have a driver's licence yet. I've been there as a Super, with my neck on the line for the Ladies Invitational. I know what it means to sweat the small stuff to help Greenkeeping and Greenkeepers survive. I get it, and I'm not just out there ambulance chasing.

Now....onward for the good of The Golf.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dave,
Sorry for the misinterpretation, and I'll do my best in the future to understand those damn smilles better!

[TEPaul]

I have met Dave Wilbur and certainly wouldn't say he's being condescending.

Superintendents and agronomists generally, though, are in a pretty hard place, in my opinion. Firstly, if you go to a lecture of them, listen to them when they're together or whatever, it is a bit like listening to doctors in conference---they do tend to use a lexicon not that many outside the business are completely conversant with---anything but actually.

From what I've seen with superintendents, and I sure have talked to a lot of them, they all seem to live and work on a sort of odd or fine line where they're dealing with people (those on green committees and such) who know very little or sometimes just enough about the nuts and bolts and ins and outs of the management and particularly the remediation practices of agronomy to be truly dangerous.

These people, unfortunately and generally tend to put demands on superintendents without sufficiently understanding the slate of potential consequences!

That, in my opinion, puts even really good superintendents in a position to get pretty clever to downright expert fudgers---and, I, for one, don't blame them for doing that at all. They really don't have the time or the inclination to give everybody they have to deal with and who puts demands on them or makes dangerous requests of them a complete working education in agronomy.

That's why I think it's so important that those in control at clubs have some general commonsense understanding of what a superintendent does--but even those people at clubs are not easy to find.

I am beginning to suspect, though, that an entire industry of golf agronomy has been built up around agronomic remediation!! And worse yet, that agronomic industry is now big business with its own unique locked in structure! My super tells me it's not just what you do, it's how quickly you notice and figure out a problem and come up with a remediation process that's the correct and best mix or fix! It seems to me that agronomists should begin to concentrate on dialing back down on this and start heading for that point where grass can be more naturally left to do what grass just does instead of being constantly kept at some point of the look of perfection to golfers---a point, and a look, by the way, that may be anything but it's healthiest point!

And now I'm off for the mindbendingly awful drive to Southampton LI to see Shinnecock and that super brain of all golf agronomists---Mark Michaud! Just writing this has made me remember to bring my tape recorder. Talking to Mark about golf agronomy and all things golf maintenance is one of the neatest things I've ever done on this entire subject of golf and architecture and one needs to take notes!

[A_Clay_Man]

That's why I think it's so important that those in control at clubs have some general commonsense understanding of what a superintendent does--but even those people at clubs are not easy to find.

 My super tells me it's not just what you do, it's how quickly you notice and figure out a problem and come up with a remediation process that's the correct and best mix or fix!

Tom- A simple solution to both issues I've extracted from your post above:

The super should golf the course at least three times a week. And members of his crew, too. I'm serious. This is a win win. The super golfs the course, likely with different members ( different customers) and is able to TRY to educate those inquisitive enough to ask, and he gets to be totally ontop of the course.

If more supers golfed more, they could (implies possible)figure-out what makes sense, from a playability standpoint (reads fun) on their course.

I do have a great and tragic story to tell about Mark M. perhaps he'll recall it too?

June 96' Monterey peninsula; My second round on the old girl (PB) was secured by my friend Ed, a gcsaa member, who had eventually contacted Mark when he had finally returned from that year's open. Mark got us a 3;10 and we paid the rack rate of $195, but with the verbal commitment from Mark that we could get-in, all we could. Well, mid-late June, dark isn't really until 9 something. So, at 8;14 when we walked off 18, we had the shuttle guy take us to #1. We walked at a brisk pace and golfed the finest of the day. Going up the second it came-over me that if we really played fast, we could get to play #8 in the dark. (I love not looking up) We arrive at the sixth, and who should pull-up in his truck, saying how we shouldn't be out here?... Ed introduced himself and said Mark Michaud said we could. Thats when we met him. Up on the sixth, who should be there, standing with a wedge in his hand under the tree behind the green? Mark Michaud. He says, "I'll play seven with ya and give you guys a ride in." Eddie birdies her in the dark, and I have always felt, in my heart, Mark was impressed with that. I didn't get to play #8 in the dark, and while I know Mark dosen't know this, it was somewhat tragic for me. I'll never forget his generosity and it came again, when during a loop, walking to the 15 fairway to fore-caddy, he stopped me and asked if I wanted some extra hot-dogs he had for his crew, and I gladly and appreciatingly, scarfed. This was before the new management went to the low-fat low taste dogs. Have they switched back yet?  

[Tags:]

Tags: