Hardest course to be a superintendent?

[Ian Larson]

Course that I feel should be mentioned are those where there is a big disconnect between the budget and member expectations. Forcing the super to do more with less not only maintenance wise but with the hours he works because of a small staff. Throw on top of that growing grass in an environment that the grass isn't naturally adapted to? Those are the "hard" jobs. And personally....if it also includes snowplowing in a truck for an entire winter that just makes the job torturous!

[Robert Mercer Deruntz]

There is no doubt that some of the most talented supers are the ones at muni or public courses.  Gene Cortino at Eisenhower Park on LI has been maintaining an unbelievably quality course for years.  Quite a few clubs on LI wish their greens had rolled as pure as the one's on the Red this summer.  On LI the pressure is trying to keep up with a few mega-budget clubs knowing that Chris Caporicci is growing very firm fast greens at Cherry Valley on a not so great budget.

[Kenny Baer]

Augusta National..expectations and expectations to the ultimate degree

I would argue that it might just be the easiest; most resources available; perfect season for the grasses they grow, only open 6 months out of the year.

[Joe Buckley]

I agree that all a super can do is try to put out a product to the potential of their budget, but the guys at the top are there because they can reach and in some case surpass the potential of the huge budgets on offer and I really don't believe that everyone with a turf degree can do that. I wasn't saying that the supers at low end courses are doing a bad job, I know that there's guys out there that are far exceeding the budgets they've been given. I stand by the comment I made though, granted there are exceptions out there, but the way you're putting the standards that the top clubs achieve down to simply money is as insulting as any generalisation I could ever make.    

[jeffwarne]

I would say that the "easiest course to be a superintendant" is one where management keeps expectations in line with budgetary constraints and site constraints-and the hardest would be the opposite.
It's easy to look at someone else's job and comment on how easy it is-until you've done it

[Shannon Wheeler]

The hardest course to be a superintendent has a lot to do with the membership and their expectations.  Most supts. invest themselves personally into their course much like a child.  Most I know are their own greatest critics.  They always try to do the most with what they have.  However, if conditions of the course was proportionate to the skill level of the golfers that play them then...

[Ian Larson]

"I stand by the comment I made though, granted there are exceptions out there, but the way you're putting the standards that the top clubs achieve down to simply money is as insulting as any generalisation I could ever make."


Joe are you getting into where the best superintendents are or are you sticking with the topic of the hardest courses to super at? If your statement above is true, meaning that talent supercedes budget, then why are all of the publics and munis in the condition they are in. Supers at the top clubs with big budgets will say themselves that the big budget they have makes their job easier to meet expectations. So how does that make their job the hardest at their course? I dont know if you are in the industry or not but money can solve almost any challenge that a super may face. No matter how talented he is or not because he can afford to hire consultants, architects and agronomists to come in and do the thinking for him and his staff. And if you are saying that Augusta is the hardest with your initial comment above after the other guy mentioned Augusta youre wrong.

[Joe Buckley]

"The guys with budgets solve their problems with money"

"Sorry but it's not tough with the budget and all the resources you could ever need"

"I've worked at top 100 clubs where budgets are almost limitless and expectations are high. It's easy."

"and the ultimate budget and ultimate resources to easily meet those expectations."

"I'm sorry but the Pebble, Winged Foot, Oakmont examples are just piss poor choices of what the hardest courses to be a super at are."

I'm sticking on subject and telling you that whilst money helps it doesn't make it as easy as you seem to think and that the supers at the likes of Winged Foot, Pebble and Oakmont aren't piss poor choices and they do deserve a mention. Argue that some superintendents have got it harder, but don't diminish what those guys produce by saying their position is easy. 

[Ian Larson]

I havent diminished anybody Joe and you forgot to include some quotes that show that. Im not looking at working long hours or getting dirty or sweaty as being the hardest positions. Im looking at courses that were built in tricky areas with funky environments that make growing grass the hardest in the country. And then looking at guys that are doing more with less and trying to meet high expectations under low budgets because they have to get creative with practices and budgets to make things work. Like I said before, high budget clubs are easy because if you need something to solve a problem or just maintain a high level of conditioning. You want it, youneed it, you get it. At those types of clubs you get in trouble if you DONT get it to make sure the problem doesnt even come up. The guys at the low end have to fight for every penny they can get, every single ounce of Daconil or Primo. Alot of times knowing they just cant get it and they have to watch grass grow like wildfire or disease spread across the course. The low end guys will be jumping on equipment and getting dirty with the crew just to gain some headway on a already small crew. Ive worked at several Top 100 clubs and the guy at the top had a secretary doing the budget, any and all administrative work for him and the crew, the assistants, second assistants, assistants in training, technicians and interns were basically running the show and executing what needed to be done. The guy on top dealt with the membership and monitored the overal product being produced. Ive also worked at the low end where the super is doing everything, HAS to do everything. All the scheduling, delegating, budgeting, administartive duties, mowing, pin changing, snow plowing etc etc etc. Im not diminishing anybody. Everybody in the industry HAS to work their butts off. But this isnt about working your butts off. Its about whats the hardest course to be a super at. And IMO its where the guys have extreme environmental pressure, low budgets, small staffs and difficult memberships that expect more than what they pay for. Right off the bat that takes alot of the high budget places out of consideration.

" Do you think if you took the Super from the local public course he'd be able to produce the same product just so long as he gets an unlimited budget and resources? I sure as hell don't, those guys are at the top because they're the best at what they do and the majority have had to prove themselves on courses where the budget isn't limitless and the resources aren't endless."

That sir, is diminishing. And if you didnt mean it like that when you said it you should have elaborated more when you did. Those guys are at the top because of the path they chose to take depending on what they wanted out of their career based on their personal situations and personal preferences. Not every guy in the industry strives to be at a high budget or top 100 club GASP! And because of that not every guy at a high end is the best in the business and not every guy at the low end is the lesser talented. Theres no test they all take and the better scores go to a better club. There are guys at high end places that wouldnt know how to do more with less on a tight budget because they only know of getting what they want when they want it and need it. So theyre not forced to get creative and think outside the box like the guys at the low end are constantly doing.

[Joe Buckley]

Ian in several different posts you either alluded to or said that just because superintendents at high end courses have money their job is easy, that's diminishing in my book. Like I said argue that some courses have got it harder, but don't just say money makes it easy, money helps yes, but their positions are by no means easy. 

I said there are exceptions to the statement that I made and the reasons you state are a perfect example of that exception. The guy that maybe doesn't want to move his family and go for a job higher up the rankings, that's fine by me, I can respect that and I've got nothing against that at all. If the statement I made comes across as diminishing though then I apologise, but in my opinion the difference between a greenkeeper that can produce good conditions and one that cant is more than just the budget they are given.

For what its worth I agree with you about the hardest job being where the expectation exceed the budget, I strongly disagree though that high end superintendents have it easy.

[Ian Larson]

Joe I by no means think nor would say any supers job is just "easy". What I mean when I say "easy" is that when it comes to being able to purchase any chemical, any piece of equipment, hire all the staff you need....those are the things supers have it "easier" with compared to guys at low budget courses who can barely afford used equipment, cant spray, can't fertilize and can barely get a days tasks done because of a small staff. And let's not forget that high budget supers probably aren't looking at their budgets getting slashed AS WELL AS THEIR SALARIES. It's ugly out there. And the high budget clubs are feeling it less. Alot less. You think any of the clubs you mentioned are really feeling the economic pressure? Heck no. Oh...perhaps they can't afford the multi million dollar renovation they wanted...what a pity. Joe I've worked for both ends of the spectrum and have been in the industry for past 14 years. I think you need to experience both first hand to see how much of a huge difference and how much easier a job can be with money. I've been an assistant at a course where our shop was a run down dairy barn in the Poconos and had to take over mechanics duties in the winter because we had to lay him off for the winter, rolling around on a frozen floor with snow coming through the roof and a torpedo heater the only thing to keep me warm. And I've also worked at the Top 100 that had heated floors in the winter and 3 full time mechanics. That has nothing to do with talent. That is all money. And spending a winter with just my super doing the mechanics job in a frozen barn and then spending Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in a truck plowing snow is not easy. If we had more money in the budget life and the job wouldn't been alot more easier. If you haven't been there experiencing both by yourself I feel it should be hard to comment.

[Jud_T]

Ian,

You make some good points about resources, but from the cheap seats it seems it's all relative to expectations.  One misstep at a high-end private club with very high expectations can be a death knell for some supers.  Money can't buy you love and it can't always buy you a perfect playing surface when Mother Nature gets her panties in a twist....

[Ian Larson]

That's true Jud but with paying attention to the influx of superintendent positions that have become available in the summertime of all times, I haven't noticed any big time high budget clubs with it. It's all been the smaller daily fee guys. I'm pretty sure the smaller daily fee guys will be just as quick if not quicker to replace the super if the playing surfaces are not good. In general I think there is just as much pressure to produce a good product all around. Right now my old soils lab partner from college is being getting huge amounts of pressure at his daily fee muni to improve the greens. He has pushup greens with thatch he can't keep up with because he can only aerify once a year to maximize revenue. Is it fair? Nope. But working for the city with no budget he's in a political pressure cooker with his job and over a beer recently he told me he wouldn't be shocked to lose his job.

The difference is he is tapped out of money and resources to do what he needs to do. He's at the mercy of mother nature and fiscal quarters. The high budget guys have the resources and money available at anytime to prevent or fix a problem which can help save their job before it gets worse as the low budget guy just has to sit there, ride it out and pray for his job. It's just a hard sell for me that low end guys can get away with more and the pressure is less. I see and have experienced too much to say otherwise.


PS....my old soils lab partner who is at a city course was top in my class, super intelligent, has a high end resume of experience and could absolutely go into a high budget place and continue the level of maintenance.

[Don_Mahaffey]

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.

[Joe Buckley]

Ditto Ian, I've worked on golf courses where there's a year round staff of 5 and I've worked on top 100's where there's a year round staff of 35, so I'm by no means ignorant to the difference. I know how ugly it is out there, Ive seen golf courses lose a Super and First Assistant in the space of 6 months and not have the money to replace them. Granted the high end clubs are feeling it less, but they're still feeling it and they're still having to produce the same conditions as previous years when money was good. As Jud says for the most part its all relative to expectations and sure money makes things easier, as it does in any industry, but the guys at the top are still having to produce conditions that mirror their budget. You just seem reluctant to give credit to the Superintendents at the high end clubs just because they have money. From my experience the supers at high end clubs have to work equally as hard, if not harder to keep themselves in the position they're in as they did to get there in the first place. Again in my experience I found the pressure and stress that comes with having to produce the very best with huge budgets is greater than having to perform on a modest budget.

[Ian Larson]

"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."


Don eloquently put out there what I'm trying to say when I talk about a disconnect between budget, conditions and expectations. I'm not at all reluctant to give the big budget guys kudos for what they accomplish and at the level they accomplish it at or with how hard they work. I am, however, reluctant to change my opinion that these course are the hardest to be a superintendent at for all the reasons I've already stated. I stick by my opinion that the hardest courses are where more is done with less and expectations are still there despite environmental conditions and budget. Where the deck is stacked against you and the position is not set up for success.


Big budget courses have positions where the super is set up for success by the club with a big budget. Yes that brings pressure. But it is "Easier" to succeed when you are set up for success. And in that industry that is by budget and good communication. Too many low end guys don't have the luxury of either and go into a job set up to fail. Those are the courses that are the hardest to be a superintendent at. That's my opinion from working at several high ends, one of which being one of the wealthiest, and working at the low end. It's also my opinion being out there at these clubs now and feeling the pulse of how bad it is right now.

It's like saying the homeowner in Bel Air is hurting because he has to mow his own lawn while the guy in Englewood can't even feed his family and pay rent. Which situation do you think is harder?

[John Kirk]

It would be difficult to maintain a northern Great Plains course, where the superintendent had to stick around and face the difficult winters with a small staff in an isolated environment.  Some important work takes place during the winter, and the weather would be oppressive at best.

[Joe Buckley]

What about the guy in Bel Air that's lost everything because his business has been hit so hard by the economy? I agree that Dons answer sums up the topic pretty well, its just you seem to be of the opinion that just because a guy has a budget he cant have it tough. Im of the opinion that you could list just as many low end clubs as high end clubs in the former of Dons two examples and each course should be judged on its own merits, not simply dismissed because its in a certain category. 

[Ian Larson]

Joe if you can show me where any of your top 25 clubs have lost everything and are unable to maintain the course properly your analogy might make the least bit sense. I'm of the opinion that if you have a high budget you can have it tough. But it's not the HARDEST course to be a super at.

[Joe Buckley]

I was making an analogy that the guy in Bel Air can have it just as tough as a guy in Englewood if circumstances dictate, a guy losing his home is a guy losing his home whether it be a Bel Air Mansion or an Englewood flat. Just as a guy losing his greens after mother nature hits his turf thats been pushed to the max to meet membership expectations is the same as a guy losing his green because he cant afford to spray for Pythium. I'm of the opinion that the guys at Oakmont, Pebble and Winged Foot deserve to be mentioned in a thread like this and not dismissed as piss poor choices. You're not going to change my mind on that and I'm not going to change yours, so for the sake of the thread its probably best if we just agree to disagree.

[Kirk 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.

[Ian Larson]

Joe    You still haven't given an example of the courses you are talking about that are all top 100, that are in dire straits and can't afford to do anything. Im sure you danced around it because the top 100's are nowhere near being in dire straits. They are operating just the same as they were before the recession. The supers aren't taking pay cuts. Budgets aren't reduced. They are continuing with capital equipment purchasing. Same fert and fungicide programs. Same amount of staff. If I am way off base with that then prove me wrong.

Back to my analogy....someone who owns a house in Bel Air does not lose the house. They have assets and nest eggs to fall back on to prevent that or at the very worst downsize. (I'm not even talking about losing greens). The family in Englewood loses the house, lives on the streets and has nothing. They lose it all. So there is not a single club you mention that is even minutely close to losing it all. But there are hundreds of low end courses that are making cuts left and right with salaries, budgets and staffing just to try to stay afloat. And there have been courses that have closed or have been sold because they didn't have the assets or nest eggs to fall back on. It's much more than losing greens, it's about losing everything. So what top 100 clubs you're talking about are close to losing everything? That's what I thought, because they have money.

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. It's not about the super or how talented they are. It's about how hard the course is to be a super over. So who cares about the cream of the crop. If a super is set up for success with a huge budget....they should be successful. That's only doing their job. They are doing what they are expected to do. If they are not, then the club should replace them with someone who will be successful.

If you can show me where any of your top 100 clubs are in bad shape financially, supers getting paycuts, budgets getting slashed, staffs being laid off or not being able to afford a link pack of Primo I will admit I am off base and flat out wrong. Otherwise you and I have different criteria for what makes a course the hardest to be a super at. Even if a top 100 club has made changes to adapt to the economy, there is ALWAYS going to be dozens, no hundreds, of low end courses in way much worse shape.

[Brian Chapin]

nobody mentioned Vineyard Golf Club - That might get my vote.

[Ian Larson]

I'd second Vineyard.

[JR Potts]

They're all hard....some made even harder when other supers (notably one in Florida) sends around misleading pictures to others in the industry criticizing work they know nothing of.

[Tags:]

Tags: