[Mike_Trenham]

This question is impossible to answer because we all have different ways to measure what's "hard".
For me the hardest jobs are where everything is personalized and you can't get those in power to analyze process instead of just putting everything on personnel. These are the places that run thru supers and other employees on a regular basis and never stop to analyze what is really the cause for turnover. I've consulted at a few places like this and the BODs never want to hear about what they can do better, they just always want me to tell them what the super needs to do better.

The best places to work are where the owners/members create an environment for success by giving employees a consistent message about expectations, the resources to achieve those expectations, and use an honest process for regular evaluation.
The worst places to work are those where the expectations are always a moving target based on who is being listened to that week, month, or year, where priorities constantly change and resources allocation is a never ending battlefield, and work evaluation is more a popularity contest based on being a good brown noser instead of honest effort to achieve results.

Well said.

[Joe Buckley]

“Me trying to change your mind? Don't think so. You are the one who jumped in on this to debate MY opinion. Not the other way around. You said I was reluctant to recognize top 100 supers. Like I should be listening to you and not be reluctant to recognize their courses as hard.”

I’m sorry Ian, I thought this was a discussion forum where opinions were put out there to be debated, should I take your opinion as gospel in future?

You said in your previous posts courses on low-modest budgets were harder to super because they’ve had to take cuts and still perform, and dismissed any high end club that was thrown into the debate because they have money. Was that the wrong conclusion I got from your posts? I didn’t agree with that anyway and over the last however many post I have tried to get my point across to you that each course should be judge on its own merits be it low, mid or high end. It’s all relative, everyone’s got their own troubles and top 100 supers aren’t exempt from them because they’ve got money. There are courses in the top 100 who’ve slashed budgets massively, you can either take my word for that or not, but I’m not naming names on a public internet forum.

I’m not saying the likes of Oakmont, Pebble and Winged Foot are the hardest places to be super, but they don’t deserved to be dismissed as piss poor choices and have you stating that the position is easy because of money. Those guys have put in a lot of hard work and continue to do so and their positions are anything but easy. That’s the main gripe I had with your posts and that’s the reason I “jumped in”, granted I could have worded things differently but do you not think you could have?

It seems we agree on the criteria for what makes a course easy to super at and what makes a course difficult to super at, but were at opposite ends when deciding which clubs fit in to which categories.

[Ian Larson]

Yes it is a discussion for debate. It doesn't matter to me what you think of my opinion. It doesn't matter to me what your opinion is. So no I don't think you should take my word as gospel and no I am not trying to change your mind. I've put my opinion out on this thread. You don't like it, so you get in to debate it. So if you you want to debate my opinion and call me reluctant to change it then expect me to come back with why I have that opinion to back it up which is how I operate anytime I get in on a thread with my opinion.

So far I feel you've brought little to the table to back up why top 100's with huge budgets are the hardest courses to be a superintendent at. I've stated many points of criteria as to what I consider to be a hard job. I can only think of one that you stated which is the pressure to meet expectations. I counter that point by saying it's "EASIER" to achieve those expectations with a budget that can achieve them. That's only logical. It's illogical to think these expectations can be met with a 300K budget. That would be "HARDER". So one of my main points was that the hardest courses to be a super at is where there is a disconnect between the budget amount and expectations.

So my point is unachievable expectations. Your point is with achievable expectations. So which is harder? Pretty simple to me!

Aaaaaand once again I never meant to say anyones job is "easy". I then reiterated that again earlier by once again saying that problems are prevented and solved "EASIER" with money and resources followed by examples of how. But you are still insisting on twisting my words and taking it out of context. This thread isn't about the talent of the super. It's about the circumstances presented at a golf course with it's expectations of the membership, its environmental conditions, and the budget provided to meet expectations and maintain it accordingly to the environmental conditions within the budget.

I don't know what you can't get about that?

[Todd Bell]

Hardest NFL team to be a head coach?

[Joe Buckley]

Ian, after working with some of the Supers from top 100 courses I am in a position where I can say that their jobs aren't easy and that they aren't piss poor choices and I got into the debate because in several of your earlier posts that's along the lines of what you said. If you would have used the word "easier" from the get go I wouldn't have joined in the debate, but the fact is you did and were still here arguing over the same point. That point being that money doesn't make it as easy as you made out and not everybody with a turf degree could do what they do, that in itself makes it a hard job. There's people out there that can and choose not too for sure, some because of personal reasons i.e not wanting to move their family across state or country, some because they've experienced the pressure and the workload that usually comes with a high end course, whatever each to their own. I haven't looked to elaborate that point as it's not my place to say whose got the hardest job out there, its like asking how longs a piece of string and just turns into something resembling the Monty Python sketch about the 4 Yorkshiremen.

[Brett Morris]

Augusta National..expectations and expectations to the ultimate degree

I don't think so.  During the Masters when I was there they had around 100 staff and cut the course twice per day, before and after play.  Non-Masters periods, and through summer, there were 45 - 50 staff.  Growing overseeded ryegrass is not hard with those resources available.

[John Gosselin]

From someone who has been a super at low budget, mid budget, and higher budget clubs my experience is that they are all challenging. To debate who has it tougher is impossible. All courses seem to have their own set of challenges whether it is people related or courses related.

The one thing that makes the job more tolerable is as you get to work with the higher budgets, typically you get paid more. This is the way it should work. Pay your dues and learn to work with, and get results with, very little so when you do get to work with a better budget you know how to spend it wisely and get great results.

[Scott Furlong]

Ian,
It continues to amaze me that you think you know every club’s business; The Godfather of all Superintendents……… the voice behind us all.  I’m not going to advertise what big clubs have had salary cuts, budget cuts, etc. but I know of many.  Are you calling “Top 100 clubs” during budget time?  Do you really think every big club is completely insulated and recession proof?  I could use other words but that is just silly.  Your opinion that Superintendents at smaller clubs have it hard is fine.  On this website you seem to use past information and speculation as your trophy.  You seem to have a strong agronomic background but you don’t know the ins and outs of every club on the planet, i.e. budget, pressure, condition or when the Superintendent takes a bathroom break.             

[Ian Larson]

Scott I haven't claim to know the business of every club that's a ridiculous notion. I've said (re my analogy) that if a big budget has been affected by the recession there are hundreds of low end courses that have been affected 100 times worse. These low end courses can't even afford to purchase fert, primo and fungicides. Are the high budget clubs still able to do that? I would think so. There's no doubt high budget clubs have made cuts. But those cuts arent aren't so deep that they can't purchase the basic necessities to maintain the course. So don't start coming off again like I'm trying to be a know it all just because I have an opinion on what I've experienced and what I'm seeing now. My friend has just taken a 20% cut in his 700K for 12 months budget, a 10% cut in his salary and was forced to make 4 guys on his 10 man crew part time. Not to mention he gets some of the heaviest volume of play in the area on his course. He can't afford basic fert and Primo yet is expected to continue at a level. Show me a single Top 100 where it's that bad. Augusta? Oakmont? Winged Foot? Get real those clubs are just fine and nowhere close to that.


It is hard to say who has the hardest course to be a super at. But it's easy to start laying out some critera to start whittling it out. When you start so it's inevitable that you know you're going to piss someone off by seemingly saying their job is easy. Every super in the industry has a hard job. It's a tough profession for a multitude of reasons. But the fact is there are easier courses and clubs than others. Especially during this recession which has hurt the industry so hard it's weeding out the weak from the strong facilities in saturated markets with course closures.

I see nothing wrong with saying that the courses that have the most difficult situations agronomically and environmentally while also making huge cuts into budgets, salaries and staffs while still being expected to produce a good product are the hardest courses to be a super at. And I'm sorry but that doesn't automatically include Top 100 clubs as being the hardest because of how many courses behind them are on life support barely hanging on by a thread. That's not being a know it all Scott. It's a perfectly logical opinion based on what's going on out there.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Hardest NFL team to be a head coach?

Detroit Lions. Dysfunctional organization makes it hard to succeed.

No team should be so consistently bad as the Lions, although in MLB the Pirates are making a move to be the worst American professional sports team, at least based on win/loss record.

[Joel_Stewart]

I think you have to throw Oakmont in there. With extremely hot summers and a membership that is obsessed with ridiculous green speeds it can't be an easy job.

JPBlain,

Quite the contrary.
The membership and the superintendent are in harmony on course conditions.

Oakmont has a very unique culture that's difficult to understand as an outsider.
But, if you were fortunate enough to know a good number of members and how they view the golf course and their superintendent, you'd begin to understand that culture.

I don't know that I'd classify the summers as extremely hot, and they've got some great soil in that area

Patrick,

Oakmont has been closed this summer. Not sure if it still is or how long the course was down.

My vote would be for any number of Pete Dye courses. Multiple grasses, deep bunkers, waste areas etc etc.

Oakmont was not really closed. They did host the womens US Open and under terribly harsh heat, then had a monsoon of water, then more heat.  The clubs famous greens became stressed and it was shut down for a short time.  Currently 14 greens are open and the other 4 are expected to reopen on October 1st.

[Todd Bell]

"Dysfunctional organization makes it hard to succeed."

I agree and an infinite amount of money doesn't make it easier. 

Short answer to the initial question; IMO, the course(s) that have the highest rate of superintendent turnover. 

I'm guessing you'll see courses that sell apples in the snack bar for a dollar to ones that have them chilled in oak barrels on the first tee on that list. 

[Ben Voelker]

Is it harder to be a super at a facility that asks for lush conditions or a facility that asks for firm and fast conditions?  Intuitively, it would seem lush is harder, but I'm sure its not that simple!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()