[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you left GMCC and joined another club, I understand that the average golf IQ at GMCC would increase dramatically.

[ForkaB]

And, Pat, if he then joined Garden City, the average IQ of that place would increase dramatically too.

I know it's an old joke, but you started it.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

I did use that joke when I was being asked why a guy from New Jersey wanted to join a New York club.

I like the joke.

TEPaul,

Some deranged individual has broken into your home and is using your computer and posting on GCA.com.

His post is absent the facts and misquided at best.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine said:

"Tom,
No one (I don't even think Pat) is calling anyone idiots."

Mark:

Oh really? If you think that perhaps you should read a bit more of what Pat says on here, for instance Pat's posts #33 and #38 on "Re: Is defending par at the green a bad idea?"  and that may lead you to think again.

Perhaps now would be a good time for me to mention again, as I have occasionally on here, that the constant arguing that Pat and I do on this website is nothing more than basically a joke. I don't know when or how or even why we got into all that but I think we both do it and understand we do it because we think it's sort of a funny dynamic.

I know Pat, we're friends, and we've been to a lot of places together in golf, and we've talked about a whole lot of things to do with golf and architecture. Pat really knows his stuff, all of it---that's not the issue on this particular thread, even if the fact is Pat and I agree on all this stuff to about the tune of 98% (interesting number as I've always accused him on here of being wrong 98% of the time ). (actually Pat has probably known most of the details of all this stuff for years but it took me to teach him how to put it all into some understandable order!   ).

So, we do agree on most everything to do with golf architecture and probably golf too but on the correct and most effective METHOD or "process" of dealing with a membership faced during something like a restoration project (a big change for most clubs) and the proper and most effective maintenance practices to follow it we most certainly do not appear to agree on. Our philosophies may even be diametrically opposed in that particular vein or area.

Maybe Pat has been on green committees for forty years. But so what really? What has he learned in that time? He may've learned a good deal about architecture and maintenance practices during that time but when it comes to a membership has he only learned that memberships should be treated like children as he said on that other thread in post #33 or #38?

Pat says he's always believed in firm and fast playing conditions. If he has always believed in that has he ever been able to get any club on whose green committees he's served to dedicatedly go down a road towards firm and fast conditions or perhaps bunkers with low mown incoming sides and to stay down that road for an extended time? And if not, why not?

The answer probably lies in the fact that he's never been of the mind to communicate with those whose acceptance he needs to do that---and in the end that would logically be the majority of a membership because if it isn't the time will come and rather quickly, I might add, when they'll simply change what they do when they get rid of the green committee that Pat serves on and goes to something entirely different. They probably even go from one extreme to another over the fact of adverserialness!

I've been serving on green committees at my club on and off for maybe 20 years. For the first fifteen or so years there frankly wasn't much to do--eg very little change of any kind--restoration or otherwise. The club, it's architecture and maintenance practices just went on the way it'd been for years and the only way I knew it----basically over irrigated and soft most all the time.

To be honest I never really even knew the difference even though I played a lot of tournament golf. That kind of soft condition was so prevalent everywhere I went and everywhere I played  it was all I basically knew. Other than HVGC but for some reason it didn't occur to me there (the same way it did that time at NGLA).

That all changed about 5-6 years ago one evening as I played a few holes in practice for the National's Singles Tournament at NGLA. Looking back now I can't believe how much that changed everytihing about how I looked at ideal playing conditons derived from proper firm and fast maintenance conditions. I remember it was while I was driving home to Philly at Exit 7A of the NJ Turnpike where it hit me---BOOM---of how it all fit together---including some of the things Bill Coore had been talking to me about to do with golf architecture and maintenance and playability. Exit 7A is where the pieces of my IMM all fell together. By the time I got home it all seemed so logical.

And that message is the one I had a large hand in explaining to my membership during those years when we were putting together our Master Plan and restoration project and trying to sell the change it was going to bring to not really so much the golf course but the way it could play in the future.

That time was a major change for us and it took communication and education to not only explain why we should change but how.

At first we made a real mistake in our first presentation to almost our entire membership. I'll never forget it---they mostly asked why they were being asked to change the course, and most said they didn't want to because they liked it the way it was. The green chairman at the time got up after a while and said it really didn't matter that much what they thought because the club was basically run by committees and those committees had decided this was going to be done.

RED FLAG!! BIG MISTAKE!! The membership almost immediately went into an adverserial mode and frame of mind against us over that remark forcing us to create those four forums the following winter.

I even remember a lady, a friend of mine, in that meeting asking me when I was speaking why they were being asked to change. I thought I was being considerate and polite when I responded to her that the Master Plan/restoration project would make the course so much better. Later that evening she came up to me and said she had no idea what I was talking about.

That single remark of hers was like a real wake-up call to me. I realized we may think they understand some of the things we did but they don't. And so that's why those forums worked so well. We didn't conduct a survey with our membership of each and every facet of the master plan we merely gave the membership a number of opportunities to discuss anything and everything with us. And we were prepared to not only listen to them civily but to educate them into the logic of all this stuff including the issue which is always, at any club, the hottest of all initially---tree removal.

So, from my experience I don't want to hear that memberships are always people who are uneducatable into  this stuff and this rather complex subject. They aren't uneducatable if we take the time and make the effort to communicate with them in a civil, non-adverserial way, and my membership is really no different in this way than any other.

Because we knew no better in the beginning and because we at first appeared disrespectful to them they basically made us sit down and have these conversations and this communication. It worked----they became educated into this logic and we became educated in the best and most effective way to deal with a membership if education and cooperation and understanding is what one wants to achieve long term.

                     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine said:

"Tom,
No one (I don't even think Pat) is calling anyone idiots."

Mark, you're correct.
I didn't and wouldn't call anyone, other than TEPaul, an idiot.[/color]

Maybe Pat has been on green committees for forty years. But so what really? What has he learned in that time? He may've learned a good deal about architecture and maintenance practices during that time.

but when it comes to a membership has he only learned that memberships should be treated like children as he said on that other thread in post #33 or #38?
That's not what I said.
Go back and have someone reread the passage to you.
Your comprehension skills are slipping.

You intentionally distorted what I said in an attempt to validate your position, which is flawed.
But, I understand that, because it's the only way you can support your method, the one that took 30+ years.[/color]

Pat says he's always believed in firm and fast playing conditions. If he has always believed in that has he ever been able to get any club on whose green committees he's served to dedicatedly go down a road towards firm and fast conditions or perhaps bunkers with low mown incoming sides and to stay down that road for an extended time?
YES, I have.[/color]

And if not, why not?

Once the question was answered affirmatively, the above question became irrelevant[/color]

The answer probably lies in the fact that he's never been of the mind to communicate with those whose acceptance he needs to do that---and in the end that would logically be the majority of a membership because if it isn't the time will come and rather quickly, I might add, when they'll simply change what they do when they get rid of the green committee that Pat serves on and goes to something entirely different. They probably even go from one extreme to another over the fact of adverserialness!

The answer lies in my above response, not in the fantasy world you want to create.

How can you make irrational, irresponsible, absurd and non-factual statements ?  You don't know what you'r talking about in this area.

How do you explain how I got approximately 80+ percent of the membership to agree to embark upon a rather large and expensive golf course project ?

What was your membership's voting percentage ?[/color]

I've been serving on green committees at my club on and off for maybe 20 years. For the first fifteen or so years there frankly wasn't much to do--eg very little change of any kind--restoration or otherwise.

That's not true.
There was plenty to do, you just didn't know it.
The fact that your club recently embarked upon a major project is evidence that there was PLENTY to do.
You and your membership were sleeping at the switch for 15 or more years.   Or, maybe that's how long it took you to educate them.[/color]

The club, it's architecture and maintenance practices just went on the way it'd been for years and the only way I knew it----basically over irrigated and soft most all the time.
And why ?
Because, either:
1  knowledgeable members didn't speak or weren't listened to.
2  There were no knowledgeable members[/color]

To be honest I never really even knew the difference even though I played a lot of tournament golf. That kind of soft condition was so prevalent everywhere I went and everywhere I played  it was all I basically knew. Other than HVGC but for some reason it didn't occur to me there (the same way it did that time at NGLA).

Is it my fault that you were a late bloomer ?
That you didn't "get it" until recently ?
Had I been green chairman at GMCC you and your membership wouldn't have had to endure all those years of playing with poor conditions.[/color]

That all changed about 5-6 years ago one evening as I played a few holes in practice for the National's Singles Tournament at NGLA. Looking back now I can't believe how much that changed everytihing about how I looked at ideal playing conditons derived from proper firm and fast maintenance conditions. I remember it was while I was driving home to Philly at Exit 7A of the NJ Turnpike where it hit me---BOOM---of how it all fit together---including some of the things Bill Coore had been talking to me about to do with golf architecture and maintenance and playability. Exit 7A is where the pieces of my IMM all fell together. By the time I got home it all seemed so logical.

TE, that's not true.  The fact is that I spent hours explaining this to you at NGLA, I went over my SEVEN point list, and it was only after spending 5 hours alone in your car, with noone to listen to you, when you saw Exit 7A and it reminded you of my Seven Point list, and that's when it dawned on you.

Before my lecture you knew nothing.
After my lecture you became an instant expert.[/color]

So, from my experience I don't want to hear that memberships are always people who are uneducatable into  this stuff and this rather complex subject. They aren't uneducatable if we take the time and make the effort to communicate with them in a civil, non-adverserial way, and my membership is really no different in this way than any other.

Noone said that they were uneducatable.
But, who wants to take 15 to 30 years to complete that process.
The better way is to convince the power base.
Once that is done, the power base sells the program to the membership and they in turn usually vote for it.

All clubs are unique.
Your club just took a little longer to awake from their nap.[/color]

Because we knew no better in the beginning and because we at first appeared disrespectful to them they basically made us sit down and have these conversations and this communication. It worked----they became educated into this logic and we became educated in the best and most effective way to deal with a membership if education and cooperation and understanding is what one wants to achieve long term.


I agree, you didn't know what you were doing and because of it, you almost lost the project.

Had you consulted with me I could have saved you time, effort, aggravation and money and the "sale" to the membeship would have been infinitely easier.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

The difference between me and someone like Pat Mucci, or perhaps even you, is I certainly do understand the perceptions out there but I simply feel the need to do something about it other than just constantly crowing like roosters on here what the PROBLEMS are! I believe in SOLUTIONS and both communicating and educating memberships to those solutions instead of constantly railing against them about what the PROBLEM is which apparently in Pat Mucci's mind isn't much more than THEM!

How do you explain the success I had in having approximately 80 % of the membership vote in favor of a substantial golf course project ?[/color]

Do you think my membership at GMGC is really that different than any other membership?

YES[/color]

Of course they aren't. The reason my membership in large part has bought into something like this is almost completely due to the fact that we have taken the time and made the effort to communicate with them about these things and to try to communicate with them in a friendly and logical and non-adverserial way and SURPRISE of ALL SURPRISES it really didn't take all that much time to do it and to educate them. Not all of them perhaps but certainly enough of them to make a marked difference in these types of things. It's pretty amazing to see how, if you can and do educate some significant slice of a membership into many of these things that they then go out and basically communicate it to most of the rest!  

If I wanted to take 30 years I guess I could have attempted to educate each and every member like you did.
I chose a more efficient method and the project was overwhelmingly approved and implemented to the satisfaction of the membership.

Read Ran's write up if you'd like to learn more about it.[/color]

This really great new young head professional we got last year from Seminole mentioned the other day that he feels our membership has what he called a really "high golf IQ'. That sure did surprise me but I know what he's talking about now. That's what he sees compared to other memberships that's a direct result of the communicating and educating about many of these things we've been doing for the last few years as a result of all that happened with our Master Plan and restoration.

His words will carry more weight when he's not in the employ of the club.[/color]

Have you ever seen the reaction of a 30 handicapper when a scratch member of his club (who may be on something like a green committee) goes to him and talks to him about the 30 handicapper's own game and how he feels it relates to his golf course? Well, if you haven't, you should try it sometime. The reaction is positive beyond belief. In less than five minutes you generally have a willing participant and audience to be able to explain to him the logic of most all of this stuff we propose on here. And the reason he begins to understand it and see it is because in the real world and in fact it really does work for him and everyone else out there on the golf course simply because it is so overridingly logical!
Yes, except I explained it differently to him.
I asked him if he'd like to hit the ball 10 to 20 yards further.
He liked that idea.
Then, when he asked me about the cost.
I asked him how much he spent for a dress for his wife for a special occasion.  He told me and I asked him if she wore the dress more than once.  He said No.   I then told him that if he and the other members spent the money I was asking for he'd get to enjoy the money he spent, every day, for the rest of his life, and not for just one night on a special occassion.

I got his vote and he in turn had his friends vote for the project as well, so I know a little bit about getting things done.[/color]

So what's the difference between those old egoistic golf and green chairmen and a philosophy like Pat Mucci's?
I know what I'm talking about[/color]

There is no difference at all and that's most of my entire point here. He thinks memberships are nothing more than a bunch of uneducated idiots; he thinks they’re the enemy and he treats them that way---eg adverserially or with no communication at all.

That's absurd.
Again you have to distort what you want my position to be in order to validate yours.

Would you again explain to me how I managed to get overwhelming approval for my project ?

Would you cite where I said that they were a bunch of uneducated idiots ?

Most aren't educated in agronomy or architecture.
That's neither their vocation nor their advocation.
You know that, so why preach otherwise ?[/color]
[size=x2]
Pat has for years stated on here that the best clubs are run by czars or benevolent dictators. I agree with that---that's true---there's no question about it, history has mostly proven that. [/size'But how many golf clubs are or can be run by that kind of benevolent dictator? Very, very few, perhaps less than 1%.

Pat Mucci says he's been on green committees and such for forty years. I'm sure he has but what has it accomplished if his attitude towards the memberships has always been as adverserial as it is today--eg virtually treating them as idiots or the enemy?

My record on my accomplishments speaks for itself.
You, who have absolutely zero knowledge about my involvement at clubs is the one making these absurd remarks.[/color]

He also admits he's been thrown off some green committees or his green committees or administrations have been overthrown. Is it any wonder? If he and his green committees treat memberships that way it will always be adversarial, and because it will be, things will always keep revolving and generally to the other extreme in a cyclical way.  
I've NEVER been thrown off of a green committee.
I was removed from a special project committee for the same reason you were prevented from being President of the GAP, for posting on GCA.com.  The end result was that one of the architects I recommended was retained when the original architect, whom the committee chair selected without the approval of the committee, resigned.[/color]

He says most old green chairmen and such are egoists who just do what they want despite what others at the club may feel. Is that any different than him? Of course not. Who's being the egoist now in proposing his philosophy of dictatorship?

Again, you continue to make up wild accusations.
I will admit that I'm not a consensus manager.
And, as green chairman I maintained a small but efficient committee.

By the way, how do you know what others at the club may feel ?  Oh, I forgot, you take surveys for that purpose.

I get a kick out of those who claim to speak for the membership, as if they polled them or have their proxy.
That's just an attempt to claim strength by citing phantom support.[/color]

This "process" I advocate of membership education through communication works.

Sure, if you want to take 30 years.[/color]

I know precisely what the perceptions are out there, and I think I know what the best way is to not just constantly crow about the PROBLEM but how to affect a decent SOLUTION to the problem for all.[color]

I see the problems, I understand the alternative solutions and I try to implement them as efficiently as possible.
It's a methodology that's worked well for me.[/color]

Calling memberships idiots and treating them like an enemy is not the way to do it unless someone really wants to spend forty years banging their head against the wall and arguing and fighting with people constantly.

Would you cite where anyone called the membership idiots and treated them like the enemy ?

If you can't produce a citation, perhaps you should stop making wild, irresponsible accusations.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Then just answer one question.

How did I get approximately 80 % of the votes on a rather substantial and expensive golf course project ?

The proof is in the pudding, not in your rants.

Please answer the question.

Thanks.

With respect to the DA bunker on # 10 at Pine Valley, they didn't just let the grass grow to rough.

A shoulder or levee was created to prevent balls from entering the bunker and to perhaps divert surface flow away from the bunker, but, it was far more than just growing grass.
It was a clear effort to alter the gathering nature of the bunker from the greenside.

Whether this was rooted in maintainance or playability or both, I don't know, but, I do know that the upper front surrounds were altered to prevent gathering.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

TE Paul,

I don't want to get in between this argument between you and Pat, but I do agree with your educational approach.  My experiences have been that if you take the time to explain the issues you believe in, that you believe to be most important for each situation, people listen and for the most part respond favorably. I have never been happy with the approach of either summing up my point by saying I'm the professional, or by always trying to find common ground or a half way point.  I think if you feel passoniately about a particular approach, if you communicate it to people, they for the most part trust you, and begin to see it as the right way.  Finding common ground can be disasterous, it can be compromising and fatal to good design.  Likewise, there is good feedback from members that informs your ideas as well and can make your ideas better.  I wouldn't say it is a two way street because I feel that I am much more experienced and informed about matters related to the golf design business, but I also know I still  have a lot to learn which is a tremendous motivating factor.  Applying lessons and creativity to the next project is the most rewarding aspect for me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()