[Mike_Young]

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.

Pat,
All of your points are as I would do.....
And in the real world you are correct in that it is probably the best for the conditions....
I am trying to say I have sympathy for the Regional USGA agronomist.....he is limited in time and length of report due to a "quota"......(that may have changed)  I have heard them say'...." got to make x visits in the next 60 days to catch up with numbers"  ...I would equate it to working with private enterprise vs. govt....
The USGA makes enough money to offer the service to all member clubs that want it and subsidize it as a whole.....if the agronomist knew he would be back each year no matter what the report said it would be a better situation and would keep all on their toes including me.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

But, that's not realistic.

You're not going to invite someone into your home who does nothing but criticize the decor, function and the way you maintain your home.

The other thing that you're not grasping is confidentiality.

If the report went no further than the Superintendent, I'd agree with you.

But, with the report accessible to club members, staff, committee members and boards it could be a dangerous document if written as you desire.

The political infighting would be endless.

While the current system isn't perfect, it's pretty good and it works well considering the nature of golf/country clubs.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
Yep...it is not realistic.....
Mike

[W.H. Cosgrove]

The USGA Geen Section guys also provide a valuable resource for clubs in two ways.  

1)  It is a good way to receive an audit of how a superintendent is doing. A green committee may have to rely on their input on determining job performance.

2) The Superintendent can receive some protection from out of control committees who may thinkn they know more agronomy than their Superintendent.  

In the Northwest, Larry Gilhuly has spent a lot of time trying to educate clubs on green speeds and the risks in pushing them too far.  I appreciate his efforts.  

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

The LAST thing most USGA agronomists are trying to do is give a performance review on the superintendent.  In fact, in most cases, they go out of their way to support the superintendent, and ask him in advance what they can say to help him out with the green committee in regard to new capital expenses, etc.

[Brad Klein]

Tom,

maybe that's a pretty good thing. I would bet that on the whole, the superintendent is more qualified to establish a solid course of action than the green chairman or president anyway. Not that every greenkeeper is super-qualifed or does a great job, and some have been know to play it safe after a while, but on average I would think they are better positioned to know what's needed. And in those cases where that's not the case, the Green Section guys will take him aside quietly and have a talk, even if they don't put it in print.

Moroever, having an outside agency like the Green Section make the case for equipment or some revised strategy might well carry more political weight internally at a club than just the word of the veteran superintendent anyway.

Where the Green Section visits lose efficay is cases where the superintendent has fallen back on a routine and where he's resisting being pushed in another direction by a mobilized group of core golfers. That's when the TAS visits are not as helpful, and they have to call in the heavier weaponry.

[Mat Dunmyer]

Golf Club Comittee members look at the credibility of an organization like the USGA and like to hear the recommendations/ observations the agronomists have in the reports.

The superintendents I know here in Northern California that use the agronomists generally have a reason for them coming to their course- being it's a green renovation project that needs to be pushed through or having another critical eye looking beyond the obvious. It does seem that some of the recomendations are a bit dated and some of the best ideas come from talking to other superintendents in the area that are trying different things( new and old).............my 2cents from a sups perspective

Mat

[TEPaul]

Wait a minute.

Somebody today told me that Tim Moraghan's title most of these years was the "Championship Agronomist" or the "Agronomist in charge of Championships".

All these years I thought Tim Moraghan was with the USGA's "Green Section" that runs agronomy matters for the USGA.

Apparently not. Tim Moraghan apparently worked under the USGA "Championship Committee" run for years by Tom Meeks and now Mike Davis.

What exactly has Tim Moraghan been doing all these years preparing golf courses for USGA Championships, particularly US Opens?

Has he only been advising championship sites on agronomy or has he also been advising them on architecture?

I know Tim Moraghan is an agronomist.

Is he also a golf course architect?  

As I'm sure some on here can imagine, perhaps the line got cloudy.  

Oh, by the way, where is that line or where should it be?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()