[Gary Daughters]

I read with great interest the recent post that linked to the finalists for Golf Course Superintendent of the Year.  One of the nominees in particular was cited exclusively, it seemed, for his efforts to make his course and its surrounds  more friendly to the environment and wildlife.  From what I could tell, there wasn’t much mention of what he may or may not have done to improve the playability of the course.

That in itself is not something I would quibble with.  I just wonder about the parameters being used to evaluate Superintendents today, and where the impulse comes from.  Not that long ago the notion of integrating environmentalism into golf course maintenance seemed to be rather  Quixotic.  Has something changed, and why?  Is it a growing overall awareness?  Meaningless PR?  An effort to keep regulators at bay?

I do enjoy sharing a golf course with deer, wild turkeys and all kinds of birds.  And though it's not something I've thought much about up to now, forcing wildlife out of their habitats in the name of golf can't be a good thing, especially given the shrinking competition for living space.

But back to the point:  I have come to think that maybe the job of Superintendent is as important as that of the golf architect, and to that extent I think that guys like TEP aside we tend to pass on opportunities to explore that aspect of golf course architecture.  Is the focus of the Superintendent changing?  If so, what might be the implications?

[Peter Nomm]

Part of it is born from their own attempts, and part if forced upon them.  WI just passed N.R. 151, legislation dealing with the application of phosphorus on properties with greater than 5 maintained acres.  Evnironmental regulations will continue to increase, so it is good that these superintendents try to stay ahead of the curve.

But I have the discussion all the time with my superintendent regarding the applications he is applying.  Wouldn't you want to work with safer applications, even if you are wearing the "spacesuit?"  I can't quote specific documentation but I know superintendents as a whole are beginning to recognize long-term health problems that may have been due to exposure to the chemicals over time. 

And if it affects them, it also affects the golfers and the wildlife. 

Yes, no doubt the superintendent is expanding beyond the fairways, greens, and tees.  He is now a steward of the entire property.

[Gary Daughters]

Peter,

What you're saying jibes with my own observations.  If the Superintendent is spending more time on overall "stewardship", does that mean he/she is less focused on the course itself, or can the two be integrated seamlessly?  If not, I have a hard time seeing that most courses could afford to staff a managerial position under the Supe to focus strictly on course-related issues.

That's not necessarily bad, either, especially if it promotes innovative/economical ways to maintain a golf course that accomodate less intrusion. 

[Craig Sweet]

"Playability"is pretty subjective...limiting imputs and other ecologically sound practices are measurable....

I hope you are not advocating that we go back to using heavy metals to eliminate moss, 2-4 d on the dandelions, and going back to the days of using 8 lbs of nitrogen on the greens.

[Joe Hancock]

"Playability"is pretty subjective...limiting imputs and other ecologically sound practices are measurable....

I hope you are not advocating that we go back to using heavy metals to eliminate moss, 2-4 d on the dandelions, and going back to the days of using 8 lbs of nitrogen on the greens.

How'd you pull that out of the discussion thus far?

Joe

[Gary Daughters]

Craig,

Where did you ever get that?  Where did I say anything about chemicals?

What I was putting forth, which Peter got but you obviously chose not to, was that the Super’s job seems to be evolving to an overall steward of the land, not just the course, and what affect that might that have on how a course plays.

For whatever reason you seem to have ignored that I stated that this could be beneficial “if it promotes innovative/economical ways to maintain a golf course that accomodate less intrusion.”

Comprende?

[Don_Mahaffey]

Some golf supers have been stewards of the land for decades.
It's just a lot more popular to hype it today.

My Grandfather was brewing compost tee to combat turf disease 45 years ago. Environmentalism is not new. There were always those who knew what was right and those who knew what was easy. It's just in vogue now to thump your chest and shout to the world about it.

[Peter Nomm]

Gary - that is a good question about seamless integration.  Can it be done?  Sure, but I don't think it is easy or as obvious to do, because at first it may seem like more money needs to be spent.  

In order for the superintendent to expand his responsibilities, he either has to work more, manage his support staff better, or spend more on staffing.  But there are creative ways to make current maintenance practices more efficient, which affect the bottom line and can reduce the overall work load.  For instance, more native areas = less maintenance = less labor = less $$$ spent.

Our course is built among woods and wetlands, and we have a lot of native areas.  Over the past few years we have emphasized to our superintendent the need to look beyond just the playing surfaces and "keep his head up" in his rounds about the course.  Of course, the playable areas are still primary, but he is responsible for the maintenance of the entire property.  

In an effort to help him, we re-structured his staff, and added a little more $$$ to his budget allowing him to hire a new full-time assistant.  His old assistant had evolved more into a mechanic, so by "re-structure" I mean we changed his focus to a full shop manager.

Now our super has a full-time on-course assistant (who by the way was the 1st assistant duing the grow-in at Rock Creek - boy can I hear some neat things now).  Also, as part of the super's job we expect him to get out to other courses in the state, share practices with the other supers, and bring home things to continually improve our course.

We firmly believe that if we continually look to improve the big picture and are not afraid to wisely spend some money up front, the we will see the rewards quickly.  While we increased our labor budget a little, we expect other areas to improve as a result.  I think our new assistant will be worth every extra penny we spent and then some.

Overall environmental issues are big in the public eye, and it does well that private clubs like ours lead by example.  By nature private clubs are not always looked upon favorably.  And if any of these new ideas improve the course as a whole then we have achieved our goal.

[Craig Sweet]

The implication is by being a better steward of the land and paying more attention to the environment, something suffers....playability....that is what I took from your post...

In the past there was little or no concern (lack of knowledge perhaps) for being a steward of the land in the same sense that we think of today....perhaps 40 years ago "playability" meant being a steward of the land?

[Tom_Doak]

Craig:

I don't think it was implied that playability will suffer because of environmental stewardship.  I think the point was that the GCSAA gives major public displays of affection about environmental stewardship and NOT about having a golf course in great playable shape.

[Peter Nomm]

Playability shouldn't suffer at all.  The GCSAA promotes continual expansion of the role of the superintendent, and this falls in that line, especially for guys who have been at their jobs for a while like ours.  These guys get better and better at their jobs, so they can take on these added responsibilities.  And all of it benefits us - the golfers.

[Craig Sweet]

Tom, don't you think the non golfing public, and to some extent golfers, think that golf courses use too many chemicals and are not environmentally friendly places?  Is this not the GCSAA #1 public relations issue?

[JohnH]

When I was first out of college my initial job was at a course that was in-line to become a member of the National Audubon Society.  It was something the super worked hard to achieve, not for him but for the course.  It's a feather in the cap, so to speak, of a course to be a member of this society.  It takes diligence, time, and hard work, and is a positive impact on how a course is viewed from the outside in.  I was thankful for the opportunity to be exposed to that experience at an early juncture of my career, and carry what I learned from it to this day.  It was also considered one of the nicest maintained courses around.  That was over 13 years ago, and I know the importance of environmentally friendly golf courses have been around for a lot longer than that, and as far as I'm aware, the GCSAA has promoted a balance between the two (environmental stewardship and excellent maintenance) since its inception.

[Mat Dunmyer]

 Me personally being a superintendent, feel there is an obligation to be a steward for the environment and promote practices that do not impact the environment in a significant way, but still provide the best possible playing conditions. There are alot of supers out there that do the right thing and don't immediately go to the chemical answer.

[Chris Tritabaugh]

As a Superintendent I am always looking for non-chemical ways to maintain the golf course.  The course I manage is in a climate that does not have high disease pressure.  My goal over the next few years is to drastically reduce or eliminate our use of pesticides.  One of the wonderful tradeoffs is, the reduction of inputs (ie: nitrogen and water) so necessary to reducing pesticide usage, also helps us to produce desired playing conditions. 

The question asked about whether a Superintendent who is asked to be a steward of the environment has his attention pulled too far from other areas, such as playing conditions is a good one.  My answer to that is, this is why the Assistant Superintendent is so important.  Many Assistants these days fill a role very similar to that of a Supt 10-20 years ago.  Asst Supt these days are highly educated and highly motivated.  While the demands of golfers have forced supts to change their role, the advanced skills of todays asst supts have allowed that role to change without the golf course suffering.

[JSPayne]

As a new first-time superintendent, I can say from immediate experience that the demands and expectations of most superintendent positions now are evolving greatly from what they have been in the past.

I believe the reasons the Turfnet Super of the Year nominees were selected are for one of two reasons: (1) they found new, innovative, cost-efficient and amazing ways to improve turf conditions that were struggilng or overcame major conditions that historically would devestate most any golf course or (2) they act proactively led "out of the box" projects that may not be desperately needed by the course (i.e. environmental enhancements or course restorations) but greatly improve the reputation and aesthetics of the course.

From my experiences I feel that, for the most part, being able to grow grass and keep course conditions favorable and playable is taken as a given for superintendents. There are so many of us now with degrees and either years of experience or more limited but unique experience  at well-respected courses that lead by example of ideal turf maintenance and conditions. So any courses looking for a new superintendent, or looking to grow their current one, are looking for him/her to stand out in other areas beyond "just growing grass". The market for golf has been very impacted post-9/11 and the more a course can do in terms of turf and everything beyond, the more marketable they are and the more likely they are to survive these tough times.

[SL_Solow]

My perspective is as a long time green chairman who is also active in area golf association activities re course maintenance, and as a nominator for Paul Voykin who received the Super of the year Award.  I first note that this award is not given by the GCSAA but rather by Turfnet (formerly Super News).  They do a great job of investigating each nominee who reaches or is considered for finalist statue conducting numerous interviews and visiting the course.  It is my impression that the ability to maintain a course in outstanding condition is an important prerequisite.

Moreover, the idea that environmental stewardship is something new is incorrect in my opinion.  Many of the older superintendents, who did not have access to all of the modrn equipment had a great feel for and love of the land and nature and found a way to manage their courses in greater harmony with nature's cycles than we currently do when members expect near perfect conditions regardless of the season, weather etc.

Finally I note that the previously mentioned Paul Voykin authored an article in the early 70's entitled Overgrooming Is Overspending" in which he sponsored increasing the amount of natural acreage on courses both as a way of saving money and as a method to create a golfing environment that was less artificial.   His success and 48 year tenure at our club shows that both objectives can be achieved.

[Gary Daughters]

SL_S,

Those are some really interesting thoughts.

In the interest of brevity, would you submit that the attention being paid to environmental stewardship is a return to "old school" values?

Did "modern equipment" lead the stewards astray? 

More than TV?

[Mike McGuire]

Three years ago our club started an invasive species control program. Our course has a lot of woodlands and we go through them every year and remove garlic mustard, reed canary grass, buckthorn, honeysuckle and autumn olive.

We also educate our members on about these alien invaders so they can control them on their own properties.

Our super and his entire staff recognize they need to manage the entire property - not just the golf holes.. This year we will begin to convert out of play areas from mowed to turf to native grasses.

[TEPaul]

"But back to the point:  I have come to think that maybe the job of Superintendent is as important as that of the golf architect, and to that extent I think that guys like TEP aside we tend to pass on opportunities to explore that aspect of golf course architecture.  Is the focus of the Superintendent changing?  If so, what might be the implications?"

Gary:

Is the job of the superintendent as important as the that of the golf architect? I think it has almost everything to do with how anyone looks at the entire subject of a golf course.

I mean obviously when it's being planned and designed and built the job of the architect is paramount to a golf course. However, at that point I don't think the opinions of the superintendent are ever sought enough. They should be for obvious reasons.

Once the course opens and the architect is out of there how could anyone say the superintendent's job isn't just more important but a lot more important? I'd think it would be paramount AT THAT POINT.

What may be changing recently, however, or about to change is how much those who manage clubs must understand the importance and intricacies of the nexus BETWEEN architecture and ongoing maintenance practices. But what does that mean in real ways?

I think it means a far better understanding of these things;

1. That the way to best effect and alter the "playability" of any golf course is through maintenance practices and not necessarily through architecture.

Obviously this primarily gets into the whole spectrum of firm and fast vs soft and receptive but it also includes the entire subject of aesthetics (look). As you probably know my whole idea involved with the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" involves this nexus between architecture and ongong maintenance practices. I selected the very word "meld" to promote and make clearer 2-3 things----eg first, the word "meld" actually means nexus to me and that we should understand that nexus or meld between architecture and maintenance practices is far broader and more important than most anyone has understood or appreciated. Second, that the entire equation of "easier or harder" is effected far more through maintenance practices than through architecture. Third, that various and different maintenance practices can make any course's architecture look as different as apples and oranges over time.

2. That particular dedicated in-house maintenance practices can actually preclude the need for an architect down the line or the frequency of the need for an architect down the line by simply understanding better how to fix architecture in the normal course of annual maintenance practices. When one starts to consider this very subject it doesn't take long to understand the magnitude of it and the many results it can have down the line, certainly economically and even in the area of basically preserving the look and character of architecture.

There are a few superintendents on this board right now who are most interested in the latter area and I, for one, encourage them to develop a better understanding of this heretofore misunderstood area or meld or nexus.

Just the other day I went to what I consider a fairly important meeting on architecture and I sort of proposed that these areas of maintenance and architecture be merged together more at least in perception. I was amazed how much some there thought these two areas should be kept separate, at least in perception.

I don't think so. I think they merge naturally because most don't realize how much Nature itself gradually changes architecture and/or how much ongoing maintenance practices can either exacerbate that or prevent it over time.







 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()