[Peter Pallotta]

Tom
re your post #13
I think the thing about having 'authority' in any public sphere is that it begins with wanting it, intending it, and choosing it.

There are many motives for work that's done for/aim at public use e.g. money, fame, the common good. My guess is that very few individuals and/or organizations (and the television shows, books, internet sites etc that they create) begin with the intention of being the "authoritative voice" on a given subject; that's simply not what they want (or at least, want most of all), and because of that they never make the series of choices necessary to make that goal possible.

In other words, if the USGA truly intends and chooses to become an authority (or even the authoritative source) on the history of golf course architecture, I think it'll get there.
That's how important I think is the power of intention and choice.

It's like gca itself. If the end result is a magnificent golf course that reflects that best traditions in design, I'd bet you that it started - at some point in time - with a designer's deep-seated intention and choice to strive for that.

Peter  

 

[Phil_the_Author]

Michael,

While I am neither defending nor condemning either Tim o0r his firing, your statement "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..." has me concerned. I find it too broadly applied even while your mention of "Oakmont" gives the impression that the problem you see is quite pervasive.

there is at least one other Open Agronomic triumph during this past decade... the 2002 at Bethpage.

The green surfaces were universally praised as being the equal of any while the condition of the course was compared with, and in the case of several players at least (e.g. - Tom Lehman), cited as being better than Augusta.

Whether these claims are true or not, the facts stand that the course was and is in spectacular condition then and now, with even the Red course now considered to be on an equal standing with the Black in conditioning.

This is DIRECTLY as a result of the hard work done by tim and others at the USGA working, assisting and even occasionally directing Craig Currier and his crew.

For criticism to be valid it requires proper credit where due to the one who is at its focus. It is far too easy to criticize the USGA and the Open set-ups and to find "scapegoats" to paint a scarlet letter upon.

The reality is that there is plenty of blame to be shared. If Tim is more scapegoat than villain, as many on this thread have implied and even stated, then it is even more imperative that he receives proper credit rather than general criticisms.

[Craig Sweet]

You can pick up and read just about any issue of the Green Section magazine and read articles about how bad it is to lower the height of cut to the levels we see now days, and how bad it is to strive for real fast greens (11-13-14). You can read all about over watering and what it can lead to.

But then, the USGA goes and sets up the US Open with very fast greens and very low cuts in the fairways...and if you ask me, Oakmont looked pretty green and lush.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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?

Mike,

When the USGA first went to Shinnecock as they were preparing for the Open in 1986 they were shocked by the condition of the golf course.

I believe they infused their staff, their staff's expertise and additional funds in an attempt to prepare the golf course for the Open.

It would seem that regional agronomists might not have a handle on "championship" conditions as desired by the USGA for the U.S. Open, their premier championship.

That's what puzzles me with respect to the elimination of the position.

In reviewing their annual report, the impact on the bottom line is de minimis.

Having an In-House agronomist seems prudent, just like having In-House counsel.

The elimination of the position seems counter intuitive.

[Brad Klein]

Patrick, do you know for a fact that Shinnecock Hills back in the mid-1980s was even using the Green Section on a consulting basis? I doubt their extremely limited budget had room for that. Remember, it was Karl Olson, USGA Regional Agronomist at the time, who brought Shinnecock Hills' maintenance out of the unfunded dark ages (barely) for the '86 Open. His "reward" was recognition and the job at NGLA.

On another count, it's easy to blame Tim Moraghan for being there when agronomic mistakes were made. (Olympic Club 18th green in 1997; Southern Hills 9th and 18th greens in 2001). But he was not working alone, and in many cases he was dealing with decisions made first by others or with folks who had responsibility over him.

And for for those who were there at Shinnecock Hills up close in 2004, it was clear the problem lay elsewhere and that Tim was among those trying to solve it and was not allowed to.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, do you know for a fact that Shinnecock Hills back in the mid-1980s was even using the Green Section on a consulting basis?

It depends upon the precise point in time that the question is framed.

Once certain discoveries were made relative to the condition of the golf course, the answer is:  Yes, I do, and my source is unimpeachable[/color]

I doubt their extremely limited budget had room for that.

When you say "their" are you referencing SH or the USGA ?

That's why I referenced the "infusion of additional funds" by the USGA.  USGA staff were brought on site to "supervise" the efforts to improve the conditions..[/color]

Remember, it was Karl Olson, USGA Regional Agronomist at the time, who brought Shinnecock Hills' maintenance out of the unfunded dark ages (barely) for the '86 Open.

Prior to the preparation for the US Open the conditions at Shinnecock could best be described as spartan, or, as you put it, in the dark ages.  The USGA was surprised and recognized that they needed to improve conditions through the infusion of various resources, which they did.

When there's clover in the greens that gets your attention.

The USGA recognized that conditions needed to be improved, dramatically, and they did what was needed to address the issue.[/color]

His "reward" was recognition and the job at NGLA.

On another count, it's easy to blame Tim Moraghan for being there when agronomic mistakes were made. (Olympic Club 18th green in 1997; Southern Hills 9th and 18th greens in 2001). But he was not working alone, and in many cases he was dealing with decisions made first by others or with folks who had responsibility over him.

I'm unaware of the details of Tim's specific roles at the clubs you reference.[/color]

And for for those who were there at Shinnecock Hills up close in 2004, it was clear the problem lay elsewhere and that Tim was among those trying to solve it and was not allowed to.


I wasn't aware that it was stated that Tim was responsible for what happened at SH in 2004.  As you mentioned, it wasn't a one man show.[/color]

[Mike_Young]

I agree that TM did a good job and was caught in the fray....
HOWEVER..I see the Green Section in a different light.  Consider this scenario.......The words USGA carries a lot of CYA weight with clubs and their members around the country.  The USGA regional agronomist are under a quota for visits.....they have absolutely nothing to gain in giving a report that differs from what the customer request....NOW is the customer the Supt or the green chair or the club.....if the supt and he needs/wants a new lightweight fairway unit then the report can be made to say it is needed.....if it is the green chair and he wants a new supt..then the rpeort can CYA on that move.....MY point being that no one in the future will arguw with decisions made by a board or a supt if there is a "USGA" report and they know it....There may be plenty of good USGA regional guys but they operate differently from independent consultants.....JMO
Best of luck to TM.....

[Chris Cupit]

I agree that TM did a good job and was caught in the fray....
HOWEVER..I see the Green Section in a different light.  Consider this scenario.......The words USGA carries a lot of CYA weight with clubs and their members around the country.  The USGA regional agronomist are under a quota for visits.....they have absolutely nothing to gain in giving a report that differs from what the customer request....NOW is the customer the Supt or the green chair or the club.....if the supt and he needs/wants a new lightweight fairway unit then the report can be made to say it is needed.....if it is the green chair and he wants a new supt..then the rpeort can CYA on that move.....MY point being that no one in the future will arguw with decisions made by a board or a supt if there is a "USGA" report and they know it....There may be plenty of good USGA regional guys but they operate differently from independent consultants.....JMO
Best of luck to TM.....

My experience has been far different and a very good one.  In 1988, 1995 and 2006 we asked the USGA to come and help us.  I think it was Pat O'Brien (?) each time but the first two visits were to give us a third party view into what we could do to improve the golf course.

We handed over our budget information, and Pat spoke at length with the then Super about maint. practices.  In fact as the owner Pat spent almost no time with my father--his focus was on reporting about the course and there was no "agenda".  Maybe we were more up front than most but since we were paying for the report and Pat's expertise, we wanted the entire unvarnished opinion and both times I think it's fair to say, he did not hold back.

Also, there were numerous practical suggestions that were very helpful.  Prior to and during construction in 2006 Pat (?) was also exceptionally helpful.  We built a punchbowl green and deviated from the "USGA book" regarding depths and consistency in the green profile and they were helpful making suggestions for that green as well.  

I understand how any respected group/consultant (USGA or say McKinsey in the business world) can be used to simply CYA but I'm not so sure that isn't more of a reflection on those asking for the advice versus those giving it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I agree with you.

It's a delicate balance, one that's more akin to a hand in glove approach, as opposed to an independent consultant.

But, on balance I think the net result is a positive one.

The "process" tends to be gradual rather than sudden and constructive criticism tends to be subtle, certainly non-invasive.

But, let me present the process in a different light.

Superintendent A, who's been given his marching orders by his previous green chairman of 8 years, suddenly has a new green chairman, and the new green chairman has ideas that are radical, which may harm the golf course, and, the new green chairman is convinced that he's right.

The Superintendent essentially works for the Green Chairman.

The Superintendent knows that if he implements his new marching orders the golf course will suffer and his job may be at risk.

But, the new Green Chairman is very stubborn and dismisses the Superintendents concerns and advice.

Enter the USGA.

Few Green Chairman are willing to go toe to toe with the USGA Turf Advisory Service.

When you consider the interrelationship of the cast of characters listed below:

1  An experienced knowledgeable Superintendent
2  Rotating Green Chairman (? experienced, ? knowledge)
3  Rotating Boards (ditto)
4  Fads
5  TV's influence
6  Club politics
7  Normal Member discontent
8  Aberrant Member discontent

The USGA can be a very stabilizing factor.

Dramatic change is usually achieved when a NEW Superintendent is hired and rarely because everyone at the club has a "light bulb" moment.

[Mike_Young]

Chris Cupit/Pat M,

I can see what both of you are saying......and I don't disagree with either nor do I disagree with myself......my point is more re the quota.....as I had said earlier...the USGA guys are good guys but I have been in the discussion with friends that work their where they were discussing the "quota".....it makes them think twice b4 deciding how to report That is where I see the issue with either side.....Chris, I am sure Pat did a good job for you and got you what you needed as you describe....if the USGA is truly a service to its members then the advisors should not be burdened with a quota....IMHO

[Brad Klein]

What quota? Someone has to pay for their services, Mike. Can you explain what you mean by a quota? It's not like a traffic cop having to hand out "X-number" of speeding tickets by Thursday.

I do know that there is far less "boiler-plate" analysis in those reports than most folks think and that they are a very valuable tool for most clubs. They are also priced reasonably. Sure, some clubs might do better with a private consultant, but a lot of what goes on with a Green Section report isn't always in the print -- often it's in the background talk behind the scenes.

[Chris Cupit]

Yep.  No quota for cops or the USGA seems right to me.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what is more ignored--the 55 MPH speedlimit enforced by cops or (for 99%) the Rules of golf interpreted by......

[Mike_Young]

Brad,
A few years back a friend who is also a USGA agronomist was explaining to me that they have a "quota" of visits they are required to make and write a report each year.....and he was explaining how you have to cater to make sure the clubs will use you each year....when an agronomist starts to fall below the quota for reasons of their own...they sometimes disappear.....this pressure can make it where the report can be ture but accomodating for the cause needed.....IMO

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

It's not as if the USGA Turf Advisory Agronomist can just show up at the club's front door.

They have to be invited in.

In many cases, green budgets have a line item for the visits.
In other cases, a special approval to pay for the visit must be obtained.

But, in both cases, the club has to authorize and request the visit.

So, I don't know how you establish a quota when you're on an "invitation only" basis.

[Mike_Young]

Yep.  No quota for cops or the USGA seems right to me.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what is more ignored--the 55 MPH speedlimit enforced by cops or (for 99%) the Rules of golf interpreted by......

"rules of golf interpreted by ......are you speaking of my special little buddy DT.....?

[Mike_Young]

Mike Young,

It's not as if the USGA Turf Advisory Agronomist can just show up at the club's front door.

They have to be invited in.

In many cases, green budgets have a line item for the visits.
In other cases, a special approval to pay for the visit must be obtained.

But, in both cases, the club has to authorize and request the visit.

So, I don't know how you establish a quota when you're on an "invitation only" basis.

Precisely my point......Make sure they want/need to invite you back....if it is the supt that makes that decision....write from his side.....if the owner....write from his side...if they are both on the same side.....write from that side.....BUT make sure they continue the service.....and don't succumb to independent consultants......that is what I am saying....THE USGA HOME OFFICE GIVES THEM A NUMBER OF VISITS THEY NEED TO MAKE TO JUSTIFY THEIR POSITION....

[wsmorrison]

What do some of the superintendents, architects and construction folk think of the USGA devotion to recommending USGA greens to one and all.  What about the influence of the ag chemical companies on maintenance practices?  I have been told that the USGA Green Section is not open-minded about alternative methods and materials.  Doesn't the endorsement of the USGA Green Section carry a lot of weight in terms of public perception and liability issues?

I'm not trying to say that it isn't a valuable service.  While I refer to the information received, it is also valuable on another level; the cost of visits and reports are not cheap.  I am all for the service and dedication of the participants.  I wish they would not be so fixated on one method of green construction and so devoted to the chemical companies and the practices that make use of them.

[Brad Klein]

Turf Advisory Service visits cost $1,800-$2,400, depending upon half-day/full-day. The Green Section loses money on every single visit, since administrative and operational expenses outpace what the market will bear. Private sector consultants have to charge more to cover their own costs, and so their services are not as widely accessible to everyday clubs

Mike, If you mean that making 100 visits a year and writing up those reports is tough work and folks who can't do that lose their job or leave, you're right. But I don't see what you mean by a quota. What I can see is that if a region doesn't support a certain number of visits, they lose a staffing position -- which explains why the Southwest regions has one agronomist and the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions have three each.

[Mike_Young]

WAYNE,
THEY MUST TOW THE COMPANY LINE......WHERE AN INDEPENDENT CAN MAKE OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS......I THINK ARTHUR ANDERSON AND CO WAS THAT WAY ALSO.....

[Chris Cupit]

Yep.  No quota for cops or the USGA seems right to me.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what is more ignored--the 55 MPH speedlimit enforced by cops or (for 99%) the Rules of golf interpreted by......

"rules of golf interpreted by ......are you speaking of my special little buddy DT.....?

No, I promise .  I was literally watching my AM groups tee off this morning--2 off the first tee, "winter rules", "gimmies", etc.. and I just couldn't help but laugh.   Combined with the quota talk for some reason that's the response that came out.  It's early.

Again though, my experiences with the TAS has been excellent and, for me, well worth the money.

[Mike_Young]

Turf Advisory Service visits cost $1,800-$2,400, depending upon half-day/full-day. The Green Section loses money on every single visit, since administrative and operational expenses outpace what the market will bear. Private sector consultants have to charge more to cover their own costs, and so their services are not as widely accessible to everyday clubs

Mike, If you mean that making 100 visits a year and writing up those reports is tough work and folks who can't do that lose their job or leave, you're right. But I don't see what you mean by a quota. What I can see is that if a region doesn't support a certain number of visits, they lose a staffing position -- which explains why the Southwest regions has one agronomist and the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions have three each.

BRAD,
I HAVE BEEN TOLD IT IS MORE THAN 100...SAY 140 OR SO....AND IT WORKS AS YOU SAY.....SO WHAT I MEAN BY QUOTA IS "140".....AND THAT IS A HELLUVA LOT OF PRESSURE TO DO SUCH.....WHEN AN INDEPENDENT CAN SET HIS OWN FEE AND DO LESS VISITS BUT MORE THOROUGH REPORTS JUST BECAUSE THE HOME OFFICE ISN'T LIMTING HIS TIME OR COST.....AND THAT IS NOT TO SLAM THE INDIVIDUAL REGIONAL AGRONOMIST OF THE USGA.....IT IS TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THEIR PLIGHT.....

[Brad Klein]

Mike, when you shout like that in the morning (or any other time) my ears ache.

C'mon now, you read those reports just as I do. Rarely is the issue of greens reconstruction brought up. Most of those reports are incredibly boring technical suggestions about turf quality, disease maintenance, mowing heights and treatment frequencies. The USGA is not beholden to any manufacturers, the Green Section magazine accepts no advertising, and unlike one prominent private consultants (do I need to name him?) their agronomists don't endorse particular products or wares in industry magazines.

[Mike_Young]

Mike, when you shout like that in the morning (or any other time) my ears ache.

C'mon now, you read those reports just as I do. Rarely is the issue of greens reconstruction brought up. Most of those reports are incredibly boring technical suggestions about turf quality, disease maintenance, mowing heights and treatment frequencies. The USGA is not beholden to any manufacturers, the Green Section magazine accepts no advertising, and unlike one prominent private consultants (do I need to name him?) their agronomists don't endorse particular products or wares in industry magazines.

You are right....I wasn't really speaking of just greens.....but i have seen them recommend specific machines and they were right in that case.....BTW...I hear that specific consultant even has a "make -up artist" helping with the photo shoots now....marketing is the name of the game....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

I've always understood the delicate nature of relationship.
I don't know if an "arms length" relationship would work.

Here's my question to you.

Would you invite someone to evaluate your job if that evaluation might lead to your dismissal ?

How many invites do you think that would produce ?

Hence, there has to be a degree of co-operation or muted, constructive criticism.

Clubs reach out to independent consultants ONLY when they get themselves in trouble.  

Now, ask yourself this question.

If you need independent outside consultants, why did you hire your Superintendent ?

I completely understand your position.
But, I think the current system is the most practical and the only one that would survive.... systemically.

[Mike_Young]

Yep.  No quota for cops or the USGA seems right to me.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what is more ignored--the 55 MPH speedlimit enforced by cops or (for 99%) the Rules of golf interpreted by......

"rules of golf interpreted by ......are you speaking of my special little buddy DT.....?

No, I promise .  I was literally watching my AM groups tee off this morning--2 off the first tee, "winter rules", "gimmies", etc.. and I just couldn't help but laugh.   Combined with the quota talk for some reason that's the response that came out.  It's early.

Again though, my experiences with the TAS has been excellent and, for me, well worth the money.

Are you working today......got to go to the golf store....might stop by.....
Got my new iphone last night.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()