[Steve Lapper]

Well the blue-bloods are at it again. It seems that, according to nuumerous and respectable reports, friction with the chief blowhard of Far Hills (The Caucasian Puff-Daddy of Golf) has prompted the removal of Tim as the USGA's chief agronomist. They claim they are eliminating his position as "unnecessary." I suppose it'll afford the boys a little more jet fuel on their Net Jets, or maybe it'll just cover the burgandy or bordeaux bills at the next EC meeting?

Tim's contribution to the game has been enormous and he's always been available to any superintendent at any course, regardless of affiliation with a USGA competition. He's helped raise the standards for turf-care for all the regions in this country and has made significant contributions to turf-education and modern practices at many, many great courses. He's also a very nice and friendly guy.

Well, let's all hear it for another quality person suffering at the hands of those myopic, egotistic, and grossly mismanaging putzes sitting on the Executive Committee. Who's next? When do they announce the USGA Chief Pilot?

[Brad Klein]

http://www.golfweek.com/story/usgamoraghan_news_062807

[TEPaul]

Perhaps it really is a better and more effective policy to have the USGA's staff REGIONAL agronomists work major championships in their area instead of just a single "championship" agronomist such as Moraghan was working every championship venue in the United States.

I know this is what took place at Merion in the last US Amateur there. Stan Zontek, this region's USGA Staff agronomist was effectively the USGA agronomist in charge of that tournament.

By the way, Stan has worked for the USGA longer than any other employee. I believe around 35 years now and there's no question with his constant contact with that club and course over the years he probably knows its agronomy better than anyone other than the club's maintenance department.

I think the lesson the USGA may've learned is that in things like US Amateurs and particularly US Opens it's OK for the USGA and the club (maintenance dept) to consult on what they'd like the course and setup to be but once the tournament begins the USGA should just leave the club's super and maintenance department alone to do what they do and know how to do on their own golf course better than anyone else.

When you have "championship" supers of the ability of the likes of Shinnecock's Michaud, Merion's Shaeffer and Oakmont's Zimmers the best thing to do is not try to micromanage them with the golf course once the tournament begins.

[tlavin]

No sense getting personal about this by bashing the "bluebloods", IMHO.  Moraghan is a quality guy and he had a great influence on major championship setups with the USGA, but they apparently think they can get by with their section agronomists doing the work.  I feel bad for Tim, because he really knows what he is doing, but for that very reason, he'll surely land on his feet.  I'd be more concerned if the USGA decided that they didn't need the input of an agronomist at all in the setup of a national championship.  It sounds like an economic decision, but who really knows?

[TEPaul]

Terry:

I agree with you. This is a pretty interesting subject in a general sense and I don't see that remark about the "bluebloods" in the initial post does a single thing for this subject other than unecessarily detract from it.

[Steve Lapper]

Guys:

   I wouldn't have gotten personal if this hadn't been been precipitated by the "blame/scapegoat game" of a certain individual at the USGA. That "Puff Daddy" mishandled this and caused unnecessary embarassment for many.

   You both make excellent points about the regional agronomists and the rising quality of wonderful supers at some of the games better venues. What Tim uniquely brought to the picture that the regionialists will have a hard time duplicating is the long-term oversight and care given to many of the lesser known and rarely talked about courses pread throughout the country. Now that the regional experts will have to spend more time focusing on the competition venues, it'll be easier to have many otherwise decent places lack a timely and caring response and follow-through.

[TEPaul]

Terry:

It has been my hope for some time, and it may be happening in this kind of way, that the USGA may be more interested in the future in sending the viewing audience of particularly US Opens and their setups a new message or at least sending their message more effectively.

I believe the message they'd like to send or send better goes something like this:

"With your own courses vis-a-vis Open setups and such we'd like you to do what we say and not what we do and what we say is do not try to do what we do in Open setups (unless you fully understand the resources it takes and the point of it in play)."

Who better to effectively communicate that message to clubs in various regions than the Regional USGA agronomist who works with most all the clubs in his region year after year?

[Mike Benham]

Why does the USGA have any argronomists on staff?

What is the purpose and should the USGA be involved in the grass growing business?

Does this position have more or less influence on a course then the GCSAA?

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

Agreed.

Tim is a true professional - certainly an affable guy without question --and someone who has added a great deal to the game and to the staging of the key major championships conducted by the USGA.

I wish him well with his future endeavors.

[tlavin]

Tom,

I think that's an excellent point, but the problem as we know, lies more with members and committees as opposed to superintendents.  The overwhelming majority of qualified superintendents have virtually no interest in attempting to emulate the conditions imposed on a course during a US Open.  Their members and their ground committees may have a different point of view.  The best news in this otherwise gloomy story is that the USGA will hopefully empower their sectional agronomists in a way that makes them excel.  Partnership with a sectional agronomist is a terrific tool for a local superintendent and the sectional guys are more likely to be motivated if they know that they now have more responsibility.  And from the local superintendent's point of view, the section agronomist is much more accessible than the head guy from New Jersey.  That's probably the most optimistic way to look at the firing of a good man.

[TEPaul]

"What Tim uniquely grought to the picture that the regionialists will have a hard time duplicating is the long-term oversight and care given to many of the lesser known and rarely talked about courses pread throughout the country. Now that the regional experts will have to spend more time focusing on the competition venues, it'll be easier to have many otherwise decent places lack a timely and caring response and follow-through."

Steve:

I'm not sure I buy that explanation of yours.

The USGA Agronomy Deptartment is an ongoing business for which any golf club in any region pays the USGA Regional agronomists (the USGA) for site visits (as frequently or as infrequently as any club chooses).

If the demand in any USGA agronomy REGION exceeds the supply of Regional USGA agronomists to service that demand, the USGA will just add additional USGA regional agronomists to service that demand. Not every USGA agronomy region has just a single USGA agronomist.  

[Michael Hayes]

The USGA Green Section has been a valuable resourse for green keepers for over 70 years.  The staff of agronomists they have regularly provided a point of view that is "outside the box" thinking.  USGA regional agronomists see over 100 different facilities a year from 9-holer mom and pops to high budget country clubs.  Golf Clubs that host State level amateur tournys receive visits gratis.  I know that I have personally benefited from the USGA Green Section much more than I have with my membership in the GCSAA.

Michael Hayes

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Does this move by the USGA mean they are not concerned by the coming issues in golf?  Most importantly the problem of water.  

With a large war chest I would hope the USGA would lead the research into drought resistant and salt tolerant turf grass that will be required as quality water becomes a more dear resource.  Can that be achieved using the fine services of the green section folks?

[TEPaul]

Not to divert this subject OT but someone asked on this thread what the purpose is of the USGA Agronomy Section.

It was begun back in the early 1920s to supply research and advice on all things to do with golf course agronomy and course maintenance in the face of almost total lack of knowledge in this field at that time.

In a real sense it was an effort to help any golf club to understand how to avoid agronomic mistakes (and cost inefficiencies) that others before them had learned in a sort of club by club OJT world.

Before the USGA Agronomy Section was formed in the early 1920s most regions had their own local agronomy sections generally run out of regional golf associations such as the Golf Association of Philadelphia.

Historically over the ensuing years the USGA Agronomy Section has been a huge asset in the understanding and management of American agronomy.

The OT part, and one I do realize may be getting way ahead of things, is that I would just love to see the USGA also form a department that would also help American clubs learn how to take care of their ARCHITECTURE better.

Yes, this certainly would mean things like architectural restoration and preservation!

At the very least this kind of USGA Architecture department should be able to supply research information on all things to do with the history and evolution of American golf course architecture.

I believe the problem to doing this arises in that the USGA (and others) may perceive this kind of thing to be some kind of direct competition with American architects.

I, for one, don't believe this to be the case or at least it doesn't have to be. This kind of USGA Architecture Department can primarily supply research and architectural knowledge of all kinds borne by comprehensive architectural research. Bottom line, it can assist not just American clubs and courses but American architects also, not compete with them.

But in the end the question should probably be asked at some point;

"Does the USGA have some responsibility to stand behind the entire sweep of American golf course architecture the same way they felt years ago they should stand behind the overall subject of American golf course agronomy?"

I, for one, believe they should.

I mentioned this once to someone who is in something of a positon to effect this kind of thing and the answer was:

"The USGA can't do that."

When I asked why the response was:

"Because they have no crediblity in golf course architecture."

My response to that was:

"The USGA had no credibility in US agronomy either back before the 1920s. You have to start somewhere."

The response to that was NOT negative.  

 

 

[Steve Lapper]

"What Tim uniquely grought to the picture that the regionialists will have a hard time duplicating is the long-term oversight and care given to many of the lesser known and rarely talked about courses pread throughout the country. Now that the regional experts will have to spend more time focusing on the competition venues, it'll be easier to have many otherwise decent places lack a timely and caring response and follow-through."

Steve:

I'm not sure I buy that explanation of yours.

The USGA Agronomy Deptartment is an ongoing business for which any golf club in any region pays the USGA Regional agronomists (the USGA) for site visits (as frequently or as infrequently as any club chooses).

If the demand in any USGA agronomy REGION exceeds the supply of Regional USGA agronomists to service that demand, the USGA will just add additional USGA regional agronomists to service that demand. Not every USGA agronomy region has just a single USGA agronomist.  

Tom:

 Your explanation may well be correct but I suspect we both know that canning Tim, and especially in the manner that it was done, can hardly be considered good form or wise. He is the type of person who would extend himself and all the resources at his disposal to nearly anyone, in any stage of need (from course inception through turf management), for the very real good of the game. I'm not sure that can be fairly said of the enitre organization.

Yes, most if not all of the USGA working soldiers are highly competent and very solid assets to the principles the organization was founded upon, however, my disparagement and disagreements lie centrally with the dysfunction of the Exec. Committee, its secretive methodology and workings. In today's age with all the important issues facing the state of the game, its stewards should practice transparency (after all, they remain a 13c organization) and admirable fairness and ethics, not the hypocrisy that seems to eminate on a consistent basis.

[TEPaul]

Steve:

Maybe you're right about the circumstances of Tim Moraghan leaving the USGA.

I don't know the entire story of those circumstances.

Do you?

[peter_mcknight]

I have also found Tim to be readily available to answer any and all questions concerning set-up issues, agronomy questions, etc. and have learned so much about what makes a golf course tick and purr.

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind he will land on his feet because he is a supremely talented individual.  While this transition will have some difficulty, it is tempered (to some degree) by the fact that no. 11 is now in the hockey hall of fame.

Perhaps, if the Captain becomes the GM of the Rangers, Tim could become the Assistant GM of the Rangers.

[redanman]

The USGA will still provide agronomic consultative services if asked, right?

There are plenty of good consultants out there in the private sector. Moraghn will probably become another.

Then again, the USGA is not exactly on top of the ball and implements issue right now, is it?

[Mike Benham]

It was begun back in the early 1920s to supply research and advice on all things to do with golf course agronomy and course maintenance in the face of almost total lack of knowledge in this field at that time.

Thanks for the history and how the argonomy section came to play in the USGA.

But ... if the argonomy section was developed because there was a lack of knowledge in the field at the time, do you feel that the GCSAA is better suited to handle that responsibility now?  Or should the GCSAA be better suited to handle it ...

Your inquiry about setting up an architecture section is intriguing  ...

[JESII]

Michael Hayes made a strong pronouncement in support of the USGA greens section, and as a superintendent I put more weight in his opinion here than in those of us not "in the business". I'd be curious to hear some of our other professionals view points on the USGA green section's overall contributions. I'm not directly asking about the how's and the why's of Mr. Moraghan's termination, but rather the underlying basis for his existence with the USGA.

[Brad Klein]

Tom,

it's important to note that the USGA Green Section arose before there was any national association of greenkeepers. There was also no competition from the GCSAA or any national group of turf consultants when the Turf Advisory Service was established in the 1950s (I think it was), and even then, it was a one- or two-man operation for years. Even now, only a very small percentage of US courses make use of TAS. I think there might be more resistance from architects today to a parallel consulting or clearing-house effort.

One other point. Tim Moraghan's work for two decades focused on preparing courses for the U.S. Open, U.S. Women's Open, U.S. Senior Open, Curtis Cup and Walker Cup. All other strictly amateur events (i.e. U.S. Amateur) were the responsbility of the Green Section.

Coz,

the USGA Green section is, or has been, a major supporter of research and innovative projects on environmentally sustainable strategies and turfgrasses. It will be interesting to see how much of that budget is under scrutiny or under the axe in future years.

[Kalen Braley]

I have an idea.  Why does the Executive Committee need 15 menbers?  Are there really 15 differing points of view on golf-related issues that justify a committee of that size?

Wouldn't 7 or 5 do?  If you don't need a Chief Agronomist, and can do a better job with regional agrnomists, why doesn't the same logic apply to the Executive Committee?  

Shivas,

That reminded me of the following I read a few weeks ago...

A Japanese team and an American team decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race.

On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.

The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.

Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing.

Feeling a deeper study was in order, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, of course, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

Not sure of how to utilize that information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager.

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Team Quality First Program", with meetings, dinners and free pens for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles.

Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.

[Brad Klein]

Mike,

I have to think that the GCSAA is not going to put itself in a position where a team of its own agronomists is going to make judgments on member-superintendents or recommend products of (non)advertisers in the GCM magazine or trade show floor exhibitors. The Green Section TAS has enough trouble doing this and they don't even have a direct institutional relationship to the the superintendents or to any products and manufacturers.

[Michael Hayes]

I believe that the USGA Green Section is here to stay.  Their staff of agronomists have the breadth of experience and knowledge base to aid any golf course in the country.  I do believe that the "championship" commitees will be reworked.  Just look at the US open setups of the last decade.  (oakmont excluded)...greens with different mowing heights at southern hills, the debacle at shinny...I think in these areas the "championship agronomist" failed the game of golf...


Michael Hayes

[Adam Clayman]

Tim Moraghan's work for two decades focused on preparing courses for the U.S. Open, U.S. Women's Open, U.S. Senior Open, Curtis Cup and Walker Cup

Did Moraghan template his set-ups?

Thinking back, didn't all these championships have similar maintenance presentations?

And isn't that same presentation at most clubs today?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()