What happens when the Green Chairman "gets it", but,

[Patrick_Mucci]

No one else, or a limited few, do ?

I recently had dinner with a Green Chairman at a wonderful "Golden Age" golf course.

In discussing golf, golf courses and this course in particular, the Green Chairman presented a list of things that had been done to the golf course over the last 5 or so years and what he envisioned for the future.

Amongst other things, the Green Chairman expressed a desire to see the fairways that yellow-brown-green color, indicative of a firm, fast golf course.

He felt that that would make the golf course play as the architect intended, especially around the greens.

I immediately thought of the phrase coined by our residetn idiot-savant, TEPaul, and the maintainance meld.

The harmony brought about between the architecture and the playing conditions, vis a vis yellow-brown-green, firm, fast fairways, would make this course hum.

He seemed to indicate that his quest wasn't envisioned or embraced by all.

In fact, my read was that he was in the great minority.

That most wanted the golf course to look green, lush green.

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

How do you get the golf course to that YBG color and condition when you're the lone proponent of those conditions ?

* footnote

Hidden Creek, until the recent downpour, was getting yellowish-brownish-greeenish, and the golf course was humming, especially with firm, fast greens.

[Chris Kane]

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

How do you get the golf course to that YBG color and condition when you're the lone proponent of those conditions ?

Patrick, I will assume that this is a club where the green chairman can't do anything of consequence unless its broadly accepted by the membership (ie not a benevolent dictatorship where he does what he wants and the members can resign if they don't like it).

Isn't an educational process (whether formal or informal) the ONLY way to get member support?  How else can he get the membership onside?

If he can't get support for his ideas, he can always join another club where the members think as he does.   

[Chris Tritabaugh]

As a Superintendent who put this turf management philosophy in to play last season, I would like to weigh in on this discussion.  But I will wait until there are some more posts before I give my response. 

[Bruce Leland]

Well, as a former Greens Chairman who pushed the former Superintendent to turn off the water, cut the fairways to a reasonable playing height and push the hell out of our sand top dressing program on old push up greens, I can say that the membership of our club didn't get it.  The average age of the membership was  60+ and they were quite happy sweeping the golf ball off of 1" turf. So much so that they voted me off the board as a sitting Vice President and incoming President.  Much to my delight, not before I could hire a new Superintendent who gets it too.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I'd tell you what happened at my club, but this is a family site and it wasn't pretty. 

Change is tough for a lot of people and when the members with those feelings get into management's face, the results are often not what would be best for the golf course!

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

How do you get the golf course to that YBG color and condition when you're the lone proponent of those conditions ?

Patrick, I will assume that this is a club where the green chairman can't do anything of consequence unless its broadly accepted by the membership (ie not a benevolent dictatorship where he does what he wants and the members can resign if they don't like it).

Isn't an educational process (whether formal or informal) the ONLY way to get member support?  How else can he get the membership onside?

That's difficult to do if the membership watches the PGA Tours every week.
An attempt at education flows against the tide of widely accepted opinion.

If he can't get support for his ideas, he can always join another club where the members think as he does.

Where do you find those clubs and how do you know what the consensus of the members is, prior to joining.

In addition, there aren't many clubs in the area that can hold a candle to this one. 
  

Bruce,

I can relate to your experience, it's a very difficult uphill battle.

[Bill Brightly]

I think it can be accomplished GRADUALLY over time, but not by "shutting the water off..."

But a few key factors better be in place. The superintendent has to also get it. I can't be sure, but I think many use defensive watering practices. They fear "losing the course" and then their jobs.Secondly, the super needs to have a real strong track record at the club, and be willing to stick to it despite the occassional. complaint. Next, I think the club President needs to get it, or there will be clashes, and he'll use his power or the Board to bring back the lush conditioning.

I think if you ease into it, the members will  appreciate the added roll they get in the faiways BEFORE the course turns brown, and then they start to get it,and more supporters will emerge. It may be a 3 year process or so. Hopefully, the NEXT Grounds Chair also gets it...

[Chris Kane]

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

How do you get the golf course to that YBG color and condition when you're the lone proponent of those conditions ?

Patrick, I will assume that this is a club where the green chairman can't do anything of consequence unless its broadly accepted by the membership (ie not a benevolent dictatorship where he does what he wants and the members can resign if they don't like it).

Isn't an educational process (whether formal or informal) the ONLY way to get member support?  How else can he get the membership onside?

That's difficult to do if the membership watches the PGA Tours every week.
An attempt at education flows against the tide of widely accepted opinion.

Then what is the purpose behind this thread?  Are you asking for suggestions as to how he might accomplish his goal (I presume he wants support to create firm and fast conditions), or do you have the final answer, and we're going to guess until we get it right?

How else can he persuade the members to his point of view besides educating them?

[Adam Clayman]

I'd wager over 90% of Super's do not believe f&f conditions are sustainable, overtime.

 

[Jim_Coleman]

I discussed the subject of firm and fast with our super this week.  We talked about how Huntington Valley gets praised for being firm and fast, albeit quite brown and, arguably, a little ratty.  (There is virtually no rough there, and there are bare spots on a few greens.)  He and I agreed that firm and fast is the correct objective, but that firm, fast AND GREEN was preferable and obtainable.  He has accomplished this result with very modest general watering and additional hand watering on the "hot spots."  We have the best mid summer rough we have had in years and very nice firm. fast and GREEN conditions pretty much throughout.  Isn't this the perfect "maintainance meld?"  And isn't brown a little overrated?  Yes, it's preferable to soaked and mushy.  But I believe a super who works at it can do better.

[John_Conley]

I played a really good Tom Fazio-designed course with member #7 and the Supe when there was no #8 yet.

I loved it and raved about the conditioning.  The member said, "it'll really be nice if we can just get the greens to soften up."  He wasn't a great player, but he is an avid 12 handi or so.  

My question for him was to ask what defense does the course have if you don't place a premium on fairway play.  His response was pretty much that he liked playing to soft greens and that's what he wants now that he joined.

An educational program would be lost on him.  With just 7 members, it would be foolish for the Supe to dismiss his comments.

I have a similar story from one of GOLFWEEK's Top 100 Modern.  I raved about the firm greens after renovation.  The pro said, "really?  We're trying to soften them up for our members."

Good luck.

[Grant Saunders]

Well, as a former Greens Chairman who pushed the former Superintendent to turn off the water, cut the fairways to a reasonable playing height and push the hell out of our sand top dressing program on old push up greens, I can say that the membership of our club didn't get it.  The average age of the membership was  60+ and they were quite happy sweeping the golf ball off of 1" turf. So much so that they voted me off the board as a sitting Vice President and incoming President.  Much to my delight, not before I could hire a new Superintendent who gets it too.

Bruce

I find your post to be possibly one of the most disturbing things I have read on this forum ever.

You forced what is simply your "opinion" upon the superintendent as to how YOU felt the course should be maintained/presented. He obviously had a different idea on what was required/achievable and was providing the majority of the membership with what you have admitted that they are in fact happy with. The fact that you "delight" in his having left says much about you as a person. I would be very interested to know how long you served on the committee and how long he had been in employment at the club. 

As a result, that superintendent has either voluntarily left the course or been forcibly removed. My guess is that he left due to the frustration of having been dictated to as to how to perform his job by a committee member. This is a constant problem at clubs where committees or boards change and new members have their own agendas and goals that they seek to carry out.

As a greenkeeper for a number of years, I know just how frustrating it can be dealing with people who know nothing about your trade instructing you on how best to carry out your job. It is often a no win situation if you go against their wishes it carries repercussions or if you implement ideas that you know to be detrimental to the course the results have a negative impact on you also.

An understanding of golf course architecture does not automatically make a person knowledgeable in the field of turf and agronomy.

[Joel_Stewart]

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

Then he has done a poor job of managing the other committee people.  Its like Nancy Pelosi, she controls what comes up for vote and when it comes up.  The chairman should have complete control.

[corey miller]

Grant

I don't have time for much of a response, off golfing but i would ask you what responsibility does the Superintentdent have in educating the membership?  How much Superintendent capital should be devoted to this cause? 

And, how does your answer jibe with the desecration we saw in classic courses in the post-war era?  Did anyone  quit a job over the massive tree planting campaigns?

There are a lot of issues here and I acknowledge the important role of the super and the need for him to have the atonomy to do his job, but along the same lines, he can't only be attempting to meet the minimum requirements of the average country club golfer.

[Ray Richard]

  Many private clubs get into an ego driven battle between the specific demands of a Green Chairman and the consensus opinion of the membership. Many members like lush green grass and wimpy bunkers, and it’s the role of the Green Chairman to define the club standard for conditioning by talking to all members, not just those in the inner circle. After a consensus is defined, the superintendent can manage based on this consensus, and those who want atypical conditioning can join (and ruin) another club.

[Adam Clayman]

Jim Coleman, the ideal mm does not only mean f&f. But how could anyone know since the theory has yet to be written?  Supes that cya giving the myopic members what they want is just as poor methodology as forcing the will of a committee. Healthy turf should be the goal. That's likely a happy medium.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here in the Philadelphia area, a long standing,highly regarded, superintendent of a well known "Classic" club left his position, so the story goes, after disagreements with a new Green Chairman over making the course "more difficult"(higher rough, etc) and with even faster greens speeds. He wound up at a corporate owned private club where there is no Green Chairman, just management.

[Bruce Leland]

Well, as a former Greens Chairman who pushed the former Superintendent to turn off the water, cut the fairways to a reasonable playing height and push the hell out of our sand top dressing program on old push up greens, I can say that the membership of our club didn't get it.  The average age of the membership was  60+ and they were quite happy sweeping the golf ball off of 1" turf. So much so that they voted me off the board as a sitting Vice President and incoming President.  Much to my delight, not before I could hire a new Superintendent who gets it too.

Bruce

I find your post to be possibly one of the most disturbing things I have read on this forum ever.

You forced what is simply your "opinion" upon the superintendent as to how YOU felt the course should be maintained/presented. He obviously had a different idea on what was required/achievable and was providing the majority of the membership with what you have admitted that they are in fact happy with. The fact that you "delight" in his having left says much about you as a person. I would be very interested to know how long you served on the committee and how long he had been in employment at the club. 

As a result, that superintendent has either voluntarily left the course or been forcibly removed. My guess is that he left due to the frustration of having been dictated to as to how to perform his job by a committee member. This is a constant problem at clubs where committees or boards change and new members have their own agendas and goals that they seek to carry out.

As a greenkeeper for a number of years, I know just how frustrating it can be dealing with people who know nothing about your trade instructing you on how best to carry out your job. It is often a no win situation if you go against their wishes it carries repercussions or if you implement ideas that you know to be detrimental to the course the results have a negative impact on you also.

An understanding of golf course architecture does not automatically make a person knowledgeable in the field of turf and agronomy.

PM sent

[Tom_Doak]

I hate the phrase "gets it," because those who think they do, often don't.

However, this is an easy one.  If you get it, you should be able to explain it to others who have a reasonable interest in the subject.  Certainly, not all golfers do.  But if you can't get even a groundswell of support for what you are thinking, you are probably not on the right track to start with.

[JMEvensky]

However, this is an easy one.  If you get it, you should be able to explain it to others who have a reasonable interest in the subject.  Certainly, not all golfers do.  But if you can't get even a groundswell of support for what you are thinking, you are probably not on the right track to start with.
[/quote]

This presupposes that a significant percentage has a "reasonable interest".At my place, there is no such critical mass of people from whom to gain support.

The Green Chairman SHOULD be chosen because he has: 1) sufficient knowledge, 2) the trust of the membership,and 3) adequate time to devote.Further,most importantly,he must have the trust of the Super.

Given those conditions,the Chairman has 2 possible options: A) the TEPaul approach of playing nice with the slower children,or B) the Mucci approach of telling them that they don't even know enough to opine.

At the end of the day,some particular group is going to determine maintenance practices for everyone else.If the Green Chairman is,by virtue of his appointment,the smartest guy in the room,then he needs to be able to rule by his own ukase.If he doesn't,he needs to be replaced.

Paying dues entitles you to the use of the amenities,it doesn't entitle you to your opinions being put into practice.

BTW-I am a long time adherent of Mucci-ism where golf course maintenance is concerned.

[JESII]

Jim Coleman,

What is the need for ..."We have the best mid summer rough we have had in years..."[/i]

just out of curiosity...

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

How do you get the golf course to that YBG color and condition when you're the lone proponent of those conditions ?

Patrick, I will assume that this is a club where the green chairman can't do anything of consequence unless its broadly accepted by the membership (ie not a benevolent dictatorship where he does what he wants and the members can resign if they don't like it).

That's correct.

Isn't an educational process (whether formal or informal) the ONLY way to get member support?  How else can he get the membership onside?

That's difficult to do if the membership watches the PGA Tours every week.
An attempt at education flows against the tide of widely accepted opinion.

Then what is the purpose behind this thread? 


One of the purposes is to try to discover prudent, practical solutions, not general, pie in the sky suggestions that don't work in practice.


Are you asking for suggestions as to how he might accomplish his goal (I presume he wants support to create firm and fast conditions), or do you have the final answer, and we're going to guess until we get it right?


First, you're going to have to think intelligently, and not offer vague suggestions that will somehow change peoples minds and imbue the entire membership with total consciousness.


How else can he persuade the members to his point of view besides educating them?

That was a facet of my original question.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd wager over 90% of Super's do not believe f&f conditions are sustainable, overtime.

With a caveat for location, I'd disagree with that, provided that Mother Nature is accounted for.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So, what happens when a Green Chairman, or a Green Superintendent "get it", but, the rest of the membership doesn't ?

Then he has done a poor job of managing the other committee people.  Its like Nancy Pelosi, she controls what comes up for vote and when it comes up.  The chairman should have complete control.

But, he doesn't.  That's the reality.
He has a committee, with committee members appointed by the new President, Board and himself.

The committee members are usually intelligent and/or successful individuals, and, they all are capable of independent thought.   They aren't robots programed by the Chairman.  You of all people should know this based upon your experiences at your home club.

And, even if the Chairman and the committee are unanimous on an issue, they still have to go before the Board, which as you know, can be a difficult process.

All too often, Boards tend to receive negative comments from the membership, they rarely receive positive comments, so change, any change, is subject to a higher degree of scrutiny, and typically has a higher probability of failure.

On this particular issue, how do you overcome member after member who watches the PGA Tour every week ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I hate the phrase "gets it," because those who think they do, often don't.


This guy gets it.  He's smart, dedicated, has a passion for the game, his club and the golf course.  In addition, he consults on a regular basis with a qualified architect.

However, this is an easy one. 

If you get it, you should be able to explain it to others who have a reasonable interest in the subject. 

Explaining it and carrying the membership vote are two different things.

NO ONE knows this better than you and your fellow golf course architects.


Certainly, not all golfers do.  But if you can't get even a groundswell of support for what you are thinking, you are probably not on the right track to start with.

That's a strange comment, especially coming from you.

The groundswell for tree removal was certainly no easy task, at his club, Garden City, and many others.

When there was little support for tree removal at these clubs and others, did that mean that those seeking tree removal weren't on the right track ?

Or, were they on the right track and the membership on the wrong track ?

It seems like they were visionaries, willing to appear out of touch with the membership, in their efforts to improve the golf course.

Are they not the noblest members ?