[Lou_Duran]

Paul,

While I can understand why someone would prefer a change of scenery and not wanting to spend his time-off at a place where he works 50+ hours each week, I would think that the benefits of eating one's own cooking overrides all the negatives.  In a well-run golf operation, it would probably be a good practice that key personnel including the superintendent be expected to play the course on a somewhat regular basis (2-3 times each month?) on the clock.  This is in part a derivative of my belief that all government workers, Congress, the Executive, and the SC included, be subjected to the same laws us peasants have to endure.  Nothing like first-person experience informing decision-making.      

[Thomas Dai]

.... it would probably be a good practice that key personnel including the superintendent be expected to play the course on a somewhat regular basis (2-3 times each month?) on the clock.    

Lou makes an excellent point here. I would add that key personnel should also visit/play the other courses in the surrounding area on a regular basis - it never hurts to see what the competition are up too, plus, in this way, it won't just be your members who play and see and talk about what the competition are up too.
All the best.

[Steve Kline]

The super absolutely must play the course he is working on in my opinion. It's much easier to notice tree limbs encroaching on lines of play, mowing patterns and the affects on play, etc. when you actually play the golf course. The super should play at least once a month. He could easily do it on a Monday when most clubs are closed. Or, he could play with a few members every now and then. At the very least he should invite some members for a ride around the course to talk. It would be a good opportunity for him to explain the maintenance issues as well as get feedback. That would be much better than the newsletter that never gets read.

[Jon Wiggett]

[Off topic]

My friend's club is looking at their head professional.  He asked me how do I evaluate one, and three things that come to the top of my mind are: 1) a good teacher, 2) knows the rules, 3) can play the game.

Of course, personality and good organizational skills are important too, but I was curious as to what you guys thought.

John,

it depends on the type of club and what the club is looking for. Being a good teacher is only relevant if the job includes plenty of teaching. Good knowledge of the rules is covered by USPGA qualifications as is ability to play the game.

It amazes me how general common business practice is thrown out of the window in the golf industry. Why doesn't the club get an expert in to find the right person? Have they even approached the USGA, USPGA or local golfing associations for guidance? Unless you have a good knowledge of the industry I would suggest the above as the best idea.

Jon

[Ulrich Mayring]

What about clubs, who don't have a head pro? Let's say they have someone running the pro shop and someone giving lessons and someone working the back office and someone doing the bar and someone cutting the greens and someone to manage all those people. Only one of those guys (the one giving lessons) seems to require golf-related skills.

Historically, the Pro has done all those jobs. But one by one (probably starting with greenkeeping) the requirements of those jobs increased so much that specialized people were employed. The "Pro of all Trades" was at first reduced to representation and in the next recession "economized".

Ulrich

[Andrew Buck]

Totally depends on the type of club, the structure of the club, the use of the club and the club's amenities.

Yep, each club really has different needs, and being a good player is probably way down the list for the needs of most clubs.

[Andrew Buck]

Jeff and Mr. C. Squier -

Thanks for your responses. Upon further review, what I wrote was a rumor, untrue. It just seemed strange to me that the public face of a club would be allowed to be a member elsewhere and that if he wanted to play a different course he could just make a phone call. I stand corrected and apologize. One is always learning something new here.

This probably depends on the nature of the clubs.  If a club is struggling for membership, and the pro joins what is perceived as a "rival" club from a standpoint of both clubs are fighting for the same members to stay afloat, I could see a conflict.

If a club is healthy, I see no conflict at all.

[BHoover]

The super absolutely must play the course he is working on in my opinion. It's much easier to notice tree limbs encroaching on lines of play, mowing patterns and the affects on play, etc. when you actually play the golf course. The super should play at least once a month. He could easily do it on a Monday when most clubs are closed. Or, he could play with a few members every now and then. At the very least he should invite some members for a ride around the course to talk. It would be a good opportunity for him to explain the maintenance issues as well as get feedback. That would be much better than the newsletter that never gets read.

At my former club, I was shocked when I learned from the head pro that the super did not play the course.  It was not just that he did not play the course for which he was the super; he was not a golfer, period.  Not surprisingly, the members were frequently grumbling about the conditions in which the super presented the course.  More significantly, he was very reluctant (in fact downright opposed) to any changes to the way that he ran the greens crew and prepared the course.

I'm not saying that the super has to be a devoted golfer, but he/she should at the very least play golf every now and then so that he/she understands the needs/desires of the membership in terms of course conditions, playability, etc.

[John Burnes]

Some great responses here, thanks guys.

Not that I am right, but since I started this, assume a healthy country club environmnet.  In my opinion, the head pro must be able to teach at a high level.  Just because the PGA certified an individual, does not mean they do this at a high level.  The same goes for the rules.  I don't mind a pro referring to the book, (we all do that anyway), but his ability to explain the rule is the key for me.  Lastly, my pro doesn't have to play like the late great Payne Stewart, but he should be able to play alittle, he can't be going out there with the members and putting up an 88.

I think the training/mentorship piece is important too (brought up on this thread), as it not only shows leadership, but word gets out, and it serves as a nice talent recruitment vechicle.

Another point that was brought up, (and the reason for this post), is that clubs do a poor job on what the job description is, ie what does success look like etc.

Ultimately, he should serve as the ambassador of golf, this means even reporting course conditions.

[Jim Sherma]

The super absolutely must play the course he is working on in my opinion. It's much easier to notice tree limbs encroaching on lines of play, mowing patterns and the affects on play, etc. when you actually play the golf course. The super should play at least once a month. He could easily do it on a Monday when most clubs are closed. Or, he could play with a few members every now and then. At the very least he should invite some members for a ride around the course to talk. It would be a good opportunity for him to explain the maintenance issues as well as get feedback. That would be much better than the newsletter that never gets read.

At my former club, I was shocked when I learned from the head pro that the super did not play the course.  It was not just that he did not play the course for which he was the super; he was not a golfer, period.  Not surprisingly, the members were frequently grumbling about the conditions in which the super presented the course.  More significantly, he was very reluctant (in fact downright opposed) to any changes to the way that he ran the greens crew and prepared the course.

I'm not saying that the super has to be a devoted golfer, but he/she should at the very least play golf every now and then so that he/she understands the needs/desires of the membership in terms of course conditions, playability, etc.

+1

I used to play at a course that has a super like this. The guy can certainly grow grass and the course has benefitted from his tenure in most ways. Still, he does not really get the idea of what makes for a good playing surface and the rgeens just are not as good as they were. I have no doubt that someone with his skill set that played and was passionate about golf, he's a hunter, would be more willing to accept slightly firmer greens that would allow for healthier root bases over time.

[Carl Johnson]

Some great responses here, thanks guys.

Not that I am right, but since I started this, assume a healthy country club environmnet.  In my opinion, the head pro must be able to teach at a high level.  Just because the PGA certified an individual, does not mean they do this at a high level.  The same goes for the rules.  I don't mind a pro referring to the book, (we all do that anyway), but his ability to explain the rule is the key for me.  Lastly, my pro doesn't have to play like the late great Payne Stewart, but he should be able to play alittle, he can't be going out there with the members and putting up an 88.

I think the training/mentorship piece is important too (brought up on this thread), as it not only shows leadership, but word gets out, and it serves as a nice talent recruitment vechicle.

Another point that was brought up, (and the reason for this post), is that clubs do a poor job on what the job description is, ie what does success look like etc.

Ultimately, he should serve as the ambassador of golf, this means even reporting course conditions.

John, I assume you've figured out that some of us would agree with you, while others (myself included) would not.  Ah! Unexpected diversity of opinion.

[Daryl David]

[Off topic]

My friend's club is looking at their head professional.  He asked me how do I evaluate one, and three things that come to the top of my mind are: 1) a good teacher, 2) knows the rules, 3) can play the game.

Of course, personality and good organizational skills are important too, but I was curious as to what you guys thought.

Tell your friend to check out the book Pros Pros by Joel Zuckerman.  

http://vagabondgolfer.com/pros-pros/

In it he profiles some of the most respected club professionals.  In their own words they are asked to describe what they would look for in a great pro.  What amazed me was the divergence in opinion among these guys.  Some would emphasize the business side, others the love of the game, some communications skills etc.  Not sure in the end there is a recipe.  Probably depends on the club, members and other variables.

[Ryan McLaughlin]

I was never a head pro but I worked for some very good ones.  My take, as a former club pro and now an involved member at my current club.

1. Member Relations/ Customer Service- Number one above everything else.  If the staff makes the membership or customers feel like they are intruding by walking in the shop than thats on the HP.  We have all seen it and it is too big an issue.  

2. Teaching-  Not as big an issue as it maybe should be.  I would say the HP should know the members personalities and identify the right person on staff that would be a good match.  Yes they need to be able to teach but like someone else stated, teaching the playing of the game is as important.  Embracing junior golf should be a priority.  

3.  Business Controls- if the HP cant budget than you are going to be stuck with a lot garbage drivers from 2012.  Every sales rep knows the pro that can't say no and they make sure they are in there a lot.

4.  Hiring/ Training/ Retaining/ Promoting-  Joel's book really emphasized the importance and pride that the great pros take in finding the best assistants and getting them to the next level.  Again, if your staff is crummy that is on the HP.  

5. Respect- The HP should be respected amongst their peers and members alike.  From a private club standpoint, the members usually have fairly frequent recipricol trips and having a HP that is well respected amongst their peers and the golf community will go along way.

6. Playing Ability-  Heck yeah it matters.  The qualifications for PGA membership are lax enough for playing ability.  Your core group of members, the ones who hold the most influence, are not going to want to roll their pro out to an event or to entertain clients if the dude cant break 90.  No the pro isn't going to have a standing game on Saturday morning but they better have a real good shop game (roll out of the shop and have game!).

Just my two cents.  

[Jason Topp]

I talked with a pro recently who discussed the importance of being good at saying "No."  It is an art form to do so with members who are ultimately your employer.

[Tom ORourke]

I have had both good and not so good pros over the years. Do you ever get sick and tired of your job? A good pro can't. He needs enthusiasm to take care of each member, make sure he / she feels welcome, can fix their swings, and he does not need to be a really good player. I was a member at a club where I doubt the pro could break 75 and yet he was there for over 40 years because he had the rest of it down. He made you feel that you were appreciated for giving him business, and he treated you as a friend, not just a customer. I have also been at a place where the pro was waiting to retire, really did not want to be there, had trouble dealing with some of the members, and yes, some of them were jerks, but there is an implied contract that being a member gives you certain privileges. A good pro knows how to handle those guys even if he can't satisfy them 100%.
A semi-quick pro story - many years ago I was in an event at Huntingdon Valley near Philly and there was a practice round involved. My dad was a 23-25 handicap on a good day and drove out with me to see if he could walk the course as I played. The pro, Jack Connelly, said it was fine, and then asked my dad if he had clubs. When the answer was yes Jack told him to just play along. No charge. My dad had the best round of his life on a wonderful course, and it was a day that I will never forget, all set up by an act of kindness. That is what a pro does. He is in a service business and treats people the way he would want to be treated. I saw Jack some years later and thanked him again for what he did and he said it was no big deal, he did it many times. But it was a big deal to us, and that is the kind of individual I want at my club. I don't care if my pro can qualify for the PGA. I just want him to make my club a better place.

[Scott Warren]

Terry Lavin's rundown is spoton and successfully describes Andrew Reynolds, longtime head professional at Royal Cinque Ports.

I'm convinced there isn't a better club pro out there.

[Sean_A]

Scott

Andrew reminds me a bunch of Mike Bennett at Pennard.  I don't know of anyone better.  By far the most important thing to me is an engaging pro who is helpful.  Yes, teaching, club fitting etc help, but being friendly and helpful is by far #1.  One aspect I haven't seen mentioned yet is work on sticks.  I think this is really important if a guy can replace a shaft, regrip sticks on the spot, cut a club down etc.  

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

For me the single most important aspect is to be a people person - someone who is visible, who mixes with members and visitors, helps introduce new members to the club as mentioned by others. I know this sounds obvious, but the problem is that most professionals go into golf because they're good at it and they love the game. And the sort of personality traits that help you get really good at golf -- self reliance and a slightly obsessive focus on details -- aren't necessarily desperately compatible with this.

[Carl Johnson]

I have had both good and not so good pros over the years. Do you ever get sick and tired of your job? A good pro can't. He needs enthusiasm to take care of each member, make sure he / she feels welcome, can fix their swings, and he does not need to be a really good player. I was a member at a club where I doubt the pro could break 75 and yet he was there for over 40 years because he had the rest of it down. He made you feel that you were appreciated for giving him business, and he treated you as a friend, not just a customer. I have also been at a place where the pro was waiting to retire, really did not want to be there, had trouble dealing with some of the members, and yes, some of them were jerks, but there is an implied contract that being a member gives you certain privileges. A good pro knows how to handle those guys even if he can't satisfy them 100%.
A semi-quick pro story - many years ago I was in an event at Huntingdon Valley near Philly and there was a practice round involved. My dad was a 23-25 handicap on a good day and drove out with me to see if he could walk the course as I played. The pro, Jack Connelly, said it was fine, and then asked my dad if he had clubs. When the answer was yes Jack told him to just play along. No charge. My dad had the best round of his life on a wonderful course, and it was a day that I will never forget, all set up by an act of kindness. That is what a pro does. He is in a service business and treats people the way he would want to be treated. I saw Jack some years later and thanked him again for what he did and he said it was no big deal, he did it many times. But it was a big deal to us, and that is the kind of individual I want at my club. I don't care if my pro can qualify for the PGA. I just want him to make my club a better place.

Well said.

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott - good call: always welcoming, good teacher (England A squad), fine player (he is often the leading club pro in senior tour events) and good company. Playing isn't so important but when Reynolds finished in the top 20 at the senior open championship at Turnberry, shooting a 66 in round three, being leading club pro and top of the pre-qualifiers, everyone was delighted at the club and it gave him a lot of professional pride as well.

Lou - whilst I agree key members of staff should play and eat the food, there will always be a member who plays twice a month and the law of averages says each time he plays the GM, head green keeper and the pro are on the course. He'll be complaining to the board that they are never "working". A previous secretary at Sunningdale had it written into his contract he had to play each course so many times a month. It was his way of playing and checking things out but having the support of the board to do so.

It is very common here for secretaries to be playing members of other clubs, a man's leisure times should be his to do as he pleases.

[Thomas Dai]

Many very valid points made above.

I'd certainly go along with the fact that people skills is absolutely vital, as is the ability to organise yourself and others working around you. Not much worse than turning up for a lesson and your booking has been forgotten or going into the shop to collect a club you've dropped off a week ago and the grip still hasn't be changed or the club you asked for not been ordered. Club repair skills are maybe not so important these days - there will come a time, it may be there already, when very few lads/lasses in pro-shops will be able to re-thread twine around the neck of a wooden club. Teaching skills, they're still very important I'd say. Not an easy job. I have a great deal of sympathy for youngsters who love golf, play endlessly as teenagers and become very proficient who then turn pro but are unable to achieve success playing competitive pro-golf and end up as assistant pros in a pro-shop selling soft drinks and chocolate and balls and tee pegs and playing very little golf. This must be soul destroying.

More and more clubs now seem to be going down the Director of Golf route, where as I understand it, a PGA qualified Pro has several hats on and oversees the shop, competitions, handicaps, the maintenance crew, in fact just about every aspect at a club/course except the bar, catering and admin. Very different from the traditional Pro role based more around running the shop and teaching. Anyone on here have thoughts as to how the Director of Golf role has developed and whether or not it's a good thing?

All the best.

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,

I am against the role of 'Director of Golf' in relation to the traditional private members club here in the UK. Such roles tend to lead towards running the club more like a business rather than a member's club with the priorities changing towards increased revenue and profit rather than looking after the members best interests.

Jon

[JMEvensky]

Thomas,

I am against the role of 'Director of Golf' in relation to the traditional private members club here in the UK. Such roles tend to lead towards running the club more like a business rather than a member's club with the priorities changing towards increased revenue and profit rather than looking after the members best interests.

Jon

No need to limit it to UK clubs--the same thing happens on this side.

Member-owned clubs are funny things;they're businesses,of course,but there's an art to knowing when to make a "business" decision versus making a "club" decision.Fewer and fewer clubs possess that art nowadays.

[Andrew Buck]

Thomas,

I am against the role of 'Director of Golf' in relation to the traditional private members club here in the UK. Such roles tend to lead towards running the club more like a business rather than a member's club with the priorities changing towards increased revenue and profit rather than looking after the members best interests.

Jon

No need to limit it to UK clubs--the same thing happens on this side.

Member-owned clubs are funny things;they're businesses,of course,but there's an art to knowing when to make a "business" decision versus making a "club" decision.Fewer and fewer clubs possess that art nowadays.

Our club, with dwindling membership and threat of assessments (or actual assessments) just to cover operations needed to be run more like a business than it was.  

As with anything, one size doesn't fit all.

[Carl Johnson]

I was never a head pro but I worked for some very good ones.  My take, as a former club pro and now an involved member at my current club.
. . .

2. Teaching-  Not as big an issue as it maybe should be.  I would say the HP should know the members personalities and identify the right person on staff that would be a good match.  Yes they need to be able to teach but like someone else stated, teaching the playing of the game is as important. . . .

Not sure what you mean by "the playing of the game . . . ."  But, here's my take.  It usually doesn't get done by the professional, but I think it could be, should be.  New guys to golf club golf.  They get lessons on hitting the ball, then maybe strategy.  But does anyone teach them, off the bat, about games?  How two-ball works, how four ball works, how skins works, how 9's works, and so on?  And, how much fun it is to play those games with your friends?  How the handicap system can make that fun.  Your may say, "Well, everyone knows about that."  NOT.  I've experienced new players who think playing golf is just going out playing the course in isolation from the other three players in the group.  I'd suggest that someone, if not the teaching professional, should help new club players learn how to play games against each other.

Or, are you talking about things like etiquette, pace of play, spirit of the game, and so on.  I could go for this sort of instruction, too, as an expectation for a pro teaching how to play the game.  I have a friend who plays ocassionally who learned how to play golf from watching Caddyshack.  He think's Dangerfield's character is to be emulated, because it's funny, and who doesn't like humor all the time.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()