It's not the Superintendent

[Don_Mahaffey]

Throughout the few months that I have frequented this DG I have often read about how Superintendents should do this or do that. I just want to say that in most cases the course conditions are dictated by the members or the paying customers. When we criticize over watered courses on this site and suggest that Supers should favor firmer, faster playing surfaces, we are preaching to the choir.
Most supers I know would love to keep their greens firmer; fewer ball marks, traffic damage, and reduced pest and disease pressure are all things we like. I can tell you from nine years experience as a Super that when I allow my greens to dry out, all hell breaks loose, and not just from the higher handicap players. Last year we had a PGA section Pro-am and I dried things out. I was crucified by the pros because my greens didn't hold. This year we host the PGA Tucson Open Monday qualifier and I'm going to have those puppies firm and fast again, even though I know they will be pissed again. All my greens have approaches where the ball can be run up to some part of the green and those approaches will also be kept firm. But, I can guarantee that most of the players will still try and fly 5-irons over bunkers to tucked pins, bounce over the green and direct their abuse at me. I'm fortunate to also be the GM and have an owner who understands what I'm doing, but many Supers have no choice but to do as they are told or find another job. The firm, fast education needs to be directed at golfers, not Superintendents.  

[TEPaul]

Excellent point and how true. It's the membership that has to be educated and convinced of these things without doubt, certainly not the super.

How firm do you generally try to keep your course "through the green" and how consistently can you keep it that way?

[Ran Morrissett]

Great post.

The condition of the course is really a reflection of the membership and their tastes.

If you love firm/fast, and you move into some kind of real estate golf deal, I reckon 9 out of 10 you will ultimately end up disappointed in the playing conditions because the influential social golfers will be calling the shots - and in the U.S., that still generally means green and manicured.

There a few exceptions like Black Creek in Chatt., Tenn which is blessed with decision makers who understand how crucial the ground game is for holes like their Biarrritz 17th to play properly but still, such people are the exception rather than the rule.

Cheers,

[Don_Mahaffey]

TEPaul,

To answer your question I'll try and explain how we determine how much to irrigate.

We use a weather station to measure reference evapotranspiration. We know through historical data what the ET will be on a monthly basis, but we still record it and watch for anomalies. We use this ET data to build an irrigation schedule, usually a monthly schedule which gets adjusted on a weekly basis. So, lets say we know that 4 inches was the ET for a given month. We then use what is known as a crop coefficient to determine how much of that 4 inches will be returned. This is where individual preferences are used by different supers. The crop coefficient we use is .70. Thus we would return 4 X .70 = 2.8 inches of water in that month. But, this assumes that our irrigation system is 100% efficient, which we know it is not. We audit our course with catch cans and after 5 years of adjustments we feel our system is 85% efficient. So we take the 2.8 inches we think the plant needs and we divide by .85 and we end up with 3.3 inches that we try and put down. Of course we make adjustments for wind and rain, and we also monitor the salt buildup in the rootzone, which sometimes requires leaching irrigation. The use of .70 as a crop coefficient is the key component of our program. This is definitely on the light side for Arizona and we will have to drag some hose and live with some hotspots in fairways and roughs.

A non-scientific approach is, unless we have done a leaching irrigation or it's during overseed, I don't expect to get any mud on my ball when I play. If I have to clean my ball at each green, we are using to much water in my opinion, and outside of overseeding time and late spring when we are transitioning to bermuda I don't expect to pick up any mud.

[A_Clay_Man]

Don- I love being educated in this forum. I felt like I took at least a semester away from our tour of ccod. And the skins pro-am was way better than I expected. Thanx. On Landmarks island area to the left of 14 was the perfect spot to see everything on 3 holes. I noticed it was probably the original teeing ground for the next and Jesper walked right up there as if it were the natural routing. I had to direct him back on the path for the seventy yd.(at least) walk to the 15th. I even got him to laugh when I asked him if the lady in his group had cleared the wearing of her pants with him. They were loud! But about your post, I am glad you are not the type that fears using thier real name because your in the industry and Your words speak truth and don't  you just love to hear those sticks whine like little girls?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
I have never seen your course but I ask the question: are many courses in the U.S. really designed to make the best use of firm and fast conditions needed for the ground game? Don't you need mostly open fronts to greens, perhaps with a shoulder here, a swale there to take the best advantage of the ground game? If a flag is tucked over a bunker on a finger of green you are asking the player to go aerial but if the only shot available is to doink one onto the opposite side of the green, well, isn't that a little too firm?

  

[Lou Duran]

A great post Don, specially in light of other very pertinent discussions here regarding the "maintenance meld".   Your methodical approach to determine the optimal watering level to keep your course firm but playable should be adopted widely.

I part company somewhat with the notion that the condition of the course is a reflection of the membership's tastes.  That might be more true of top-tier, member owned clubs, but it certainly isn't at a large number of clubs owned by corporations and operated by management companies.

At my club, a NGP/AGC operation, we have a nice Plummer layout that under previous owners, played firm and fast.  After the greens and surrounds were totally redesigned (by J. Brauer) and the club resold (to NGP), the fairways now  generate negligible or negative roll, and the beautiful mounds, hollows, and entries to the severely sloped greens are mush pits.  I can't think of a single member who supports such conditions, yet they persist.  You see, we have a near inexhaustable source of free water, an inefficient irrigation system, and an owner who apparently has made the decision that too much water on some areas is better than not enough on others.  Our Sup. would say that he has a very stringent budget and that he must keep the greens soft so as to be receptive.  Based on his comments to an advisory board, I suspect that he believes that keeping the grass green and looking healthy is more important than how the course plays.   I wonder how many sups take this safe but highly regrettable position.    

[Jeff Brauer]

Don,

Great to hear that explanation, especially from one in the desert.  I am probably not a very exciting guy, but in my free time I have "noodled" on the "checkbook theory"of irrigation, whereby the supt.  determines how much ET there is and replaces accordingly, instead of blindly replacing water each night,

Still, I feel some superintendents do misuse the computer ET values, in that if the daily ET is .25 inches, they apply .25 inches of irrigation....ignoring the fact that the turf does not need to be at full water capacity, and could technically stay alive with only 35% of it.  Of course, no superintendent would let turf get periously close to death, but your 70/85% theory sounds about right to me, because if irrigation refills the field capacity of the plant every night, then the rainfall that inevitably comes is wasted as the plant is fully satisfied already!  

If irrigation replaces a only a portion of full capacity, gradually diminishing the plant's water content, then rainfall can bring it occaisionally back to full capacity, and the turf can spend most of the summer comfortably at something between full and stress inducing water capacity.

I try to get my irrigation designers to understand this.  They typically design for full replacement of ET in the worst month, usually figuring on 6-8" ET per month, and assuming no rain at all.  This gives the super maximum flexibility, assists during the heaviest time it will ever be used - when a quick grow in is desired or necessry - and avoids any complaints and/or liability to the designer for poorly irrigated turf, but obviously, in the wrong (either greens chairman or super) hands can lead to overwatering.  

I like to see systems designed for about 75-80% of the worst case, certainly no more than 4.5-6" ET per month, or 1.25-1.5 inches per week.  Yes, conditions would vary throughout the season, but this should promote some variety and interest.  If drought conditions really got bad, the superintendent could (gasp!) request the course closed for a day - or part of a day - to catch up on watering. Construction cost savings and interest alone would pay for an occaisional day of lost revenue.  

This system would limit watering somewhat, but usually not detrimentally, conserve water, promote drier conditions, be environmentally sensitive, and oh yes, leave me more money to build the rest of the golf course!  In "the good old days" we could reliably estimate the irrigation portion of construction at 20-25% of our budget.  Now, when systems are designed to keep the course green in the middle of a drough, 25-33% is more typical.

Another recent trend is to water courses faster and faster, so that maintenance personel can be off the course by the time golfers start!  The pump station necessary for watering a course from 9 at night to 3 in the morning (6 hours, rather than the tradition 8-10) to allow pre dawn maintenance is staggering.  In the 17 years I have been in Texas, with desire for faster watering, watering of more rough, and more specialized control, the average number of sprinkler heads has gone from 800 to over 1500, pump station has gone from 1500GPM to 2500GPM and more.

My personal opinion is we overshot the mark somewhere in the last few years.  The irrigation companies spent decades getting systems reliable, and have have done a great job of developing tools for the superintendent, but the emphasis on watering perfectly comes with some unintended consequences.  Also, I find it ironic that the irrigation system has been perfected just as environmental concerns dictate that we use less water.

Jeff

[John_McMillan]

Confusing post -

Doesn't your story of setting up your course provide an exception to your proposition that super's don't have discretion?  

Of course the members / customers will have the final say on how a course plays, but how many supers lead or direct that decision, rather than following it?

I think there is also an element of "firm & fast" = "resistace to scoring" (as mis-struck approach skid over greens, or approach putts careen down slopes), instead of "firm & fast" = "interesting play" (as different slopes around greens and fairways come more into play as options for shaping shots), which contributes to a bias against the "firm & fast" set-up.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don,

From the moment I came upon this site I have refered continuously to "The Will of the Membership", and what a strong if not overriding influence it generates.

As an employee of a club, theoretically, being accountable to the Green Chairman, Board and President, who create or communicate "The Will of the Membership", what Superintendent is going to refuse to follow the instructions of their BOSS/EMPLOYER.

What makes this job more difficult, is that 400 members feel they too are owners and bosses, and seem to volunteer their opinions to anyone, especially the Green Chairman, Board Members and the President, as well as the Superintendent.

Last Wednesday, a fellow Board member at a club I belong to asked me if I would be the Green Chairman.  He was shocked when I said no.  He said, "you love golf and this stuff, why not ?"  I told him that in order to be an EFFECTIVE green chairman, one who could also effect positive change, you had to understand the club's political climate, and that you needed to have a very strong President who would understand your intent and support you through thick and thin.  The current President agrees with everything the last person to speak to him says, and has no strength.  The rest of the Board, sensing this weakness, would be prone to voice the opinions of the outspoken few, selfish or malcontent members, and the President would waiver or capitulate, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible to effect the positive changes that most on this site would like to see.

This is the reason I believe in benovolent dictators or just knowledgeable dictators at golf clubs.

The superintendent is often pulled in several different directions by different factions, with differing power bases, and it is extremely difficult to function in that environment.

My advice to Superintendent's is to do what they know professionally, is in the best interest of the golf course, agronomically, and to try to get the direction from the messenger relaying "the will of the Membership" in writing, so that when the power base changes, or the "Will of the Membership" changes, they are protected, and can provide evidence that they were following their Bosses/employers writen instructions.

I think Superintendents work in the most difficult of environments, and my hat is off to them, I couldn't do it.

Don, Good Luck !

[Ed_Baker]

Great post Don.

 We have discussed this many times on this board and the "Augusta Syndrome" seems to be the preference of most of the golf market. This need for verdant green from treeline to treeline and greens that are so soft that a semi-skulled pinnacle has to stop is just ridiculous, but it is what it is.

With all that superintendents have to put up with on a daily basis I don't blame any one of them for turning the water on, they will get far fewer complaints on a green soft course.

I would agree with Lou that the higher end equity clubs have more control over conditions but with the caveat that "fast and firm" is subject to change with each new Green Chairman and President.

Ultimately Don is correct, the members and owners have much more to do with the soft golf courses than the superintendents do.

Today's Superintendents have to be agronomists,financial managers, human resource managers, physcologists,irrigation techs,environmental engineers, and computer wizards! Next to teachers they probably are the most under paid, under appreciated group of professionals in the work force today!

[Don_Mahaffey]

Jim,

If a design requires more water on the greens than the plant needs, it’s bad design. I’m not suggesting we keep greens like we see on Sunday at the Masters or the U.S. Open, but we shouldn’t need to overwater to improve playability. As far as the bounce, I like greens where a well struck approach takes one big bounce and then bites relative to the spin on the ball. If you shoot at a sucker pin and carry it past the hole and that one big bounce carries over the green, oh well. I find firm greens to be much more consistent in regards to spinning the ball. A good firm green will receive a good shot. The problem is we are often asked to keep greens in a condition where they will receive bad shots also.

Jeff,

There has definitely been a push for more capacity and shorter watering windows. Not unusual to see 4000 gpm pump stations and 4 hour watering windows. A lot of it has to do with being able to overseed the course all at once, instead of 9 and 9. What I see in the irrigation industry is that design has lagged behind the components. The tools we have now are awesome, I just upgraded from OSMAC to Site Pro and I don’t know how much better the controllers need to be. I would like to see designers try and get away from symmetry and realize that uniform spacing and nozzleing doesn’t deliver optimum efficiency on a property that is not uniform.

John,

Some supers do have discretion and do lead. What I’m saying is we need to make an effort to educate the public on the advantages of dryer courses. Most supers understand the advantages, but are under pressure to keep greens soft to the disadvantage of the turf and often the design of the course.  

[G_Tiska]

Don,
 Great topic! Being a follow super I agree with what your saying. Many clubs have members that care more about looks that playing conditions!! Also, many supers I know Don't hand water. They let the sprinkler head do the work. To have fast and firm playing conditions a super needs to live on the edge a little.
  Budgets also play a big part in fast and firm. To maintain these conditions a super must have the labor to be able to have staff hand water during hot peroids.
 Lastly, in all fairness to the supers, soil and growing conditions play a huge part in being able attain those objectives.

just a few of my thoughts.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don,
Thanks for the reply. I wrote in regards to your first post where you said your greens didn't hold. Your second post better explains your conditioning and is really how greens should be maintained, if possible. Under those conditions every player has the chance to play shots comensurate with their ability.

[Don_Mahaffey]

George,
I hear you. A guy with clay soils is going to have a tougher time than a super with a course on sand. An older course with double row is going to have a tough time during a drought if he doesn't have an army at his/her disposal. But, most supers do have pretty good control over their greens and it's here that outside influences make it tough. For instance, pretty tough to keep poa out of a green when the super is asked to keep it soft enough to receive poor shots. Happens a lot. Thanks for the reply.

Don

[Matt_Ward]

Great post!

My only comment is a simple one -- too many cooks spoil the broth. I agree with Pat, too many people think they know how to grow grass -- these are the same types that have weeds in their own backyards! They also fail to really understand the integration between the air and ground games.

Most people at many golf courses / clubs have no idea on what is optimum playing condtiions -- they think if it's not green it must be bad.

Good superintendents need to be insulated from ignorant people and if management does not support the efforts of those making the hard day-to-day decisions then they have set up their supintendent to fail.

I'll never forget interviewing Ernie Ransome for Jersey Golfer, then General Chairman at PV, I asked him about the pressures superintendents face at the world renowned club. He told me that when the members approach the superintendent he was instructed to say to them to see Mr. Ransome. I then asked Ernie how many ever came to him -- the answer? Very few ever did. Why was that? The answer is simple -- many of the concerns expressed by people were relegated to how they scored that particular day on the course. Bitching at the superintendent is easy because he's the paid guy -- try that same routine on a fellow member who is in a leadership position with strong convictions on how the course should be prepared and you soon find those same people chirping like parakeets!

Too many comments from members / players are just BS reasons to displace their inability to play the proper shot while on the course -- a good example is Don's initial post on the tournament held at his course for local pros. If they don't know how to play such demanding conditions maybe it's time a number of them take some lessons!

Superintendents need to be held accountable but the standards / fairness of that accountability must be gauged by people who really know what golf is about and what is possible given the turf that exists at that particular facility and the $$ available. Joe Sixpack golfer can be educated but course management / ownership needs to do more in bringing along the masses.

[TEPaul]

Don:

Thanks for the technical and detailed info--I'm really weak on agronomy and I'm trying to learn as much as possible. I see that the later posts started talking pretty much exclusively about the greens themselves, but my concern is to keep "through the green" firm and fast and certainly the approaches.

Personally, if things are going to be firm and fast "through the green" (not considering the green itself for a moment), I would hope that firm conditions could be relatively consistent throughout (as it might be on a course without an irrigation system!). What are your subsoil conditions like where you are ("through the green that is)?

I'm trying real hard to explore the possibility of keeping my course much firmer "through the green" but at the moment it seems to be a real uphill battle. It's not the membership either, but the super (who is very good) says that he's doing the best he can but the ball does plug a lot through the season (factoring out as much as possible natural wetness). He says that the course has patches of Hydrophobia and it makes the process real complicated. I really don't know our watering schedule or process (yet) but we sure never have done hand-watering. Should I ask him about this ET thing?

Anyway, it's a tough, complex issue for such as I, but I'm going to get to the bottom of it one of these days--and in the process I'm sure not going to try to push the super into something he's not comfortable with--but somehow I hope we can get the ball really moving again on my course! And not just a couple of yards--a lot!

George Tiska:

Congratulations, I heard from a quite a few already that you have the Bridge impressively speedy through the green and are likely to keep it that way!

Pat Mucci:

You big WHIMP! You call that guy up and tell him you are going to take the GREEN CHAIRMAN job! Forget about the weak President and some of the other loud mouths and the politics--you're from NJ/NY for God sakes, you can handle simple old golf club politics! One week into your new job you just tell that guy who asked you to do it that, by the way, I also plan to be the judge, jury and Lord High Executioner and you get that course firm and fast within the year! The memberhip will love it for Goodness sakes and they'll love you too and if for some reason they try to fire you we'll swarm down on that club like a plague of locusts and make you the President for life! This time next month I want to hear that you're the new green chairman!!!

[TEPaul]

DonM:

Could I get your email address or tel #. Mine is tpaul25737@aol.com or 610-353-2966.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There was a time in my life when I would have jumped at the offer, the challenge and turmoil that comes with it, but as Tommy Naccarato has seen, I have other priorities that are far more rewarding.  Perhaps, when the next President is chosen the politics and opportunity to be productive will be more favorable.

But, thanks for the encouragement.

[A_Clay_Man]

Bringing this back up as an example of less diahrea, or what ever.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Adam,
Slow day in Farmington?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Don Mahaffey,

For years I've focused on "The will of the membership.
It certainly influences almost everything that happens on and to a golf course.

However, I've also seen water used as an excellent form of camoflage, hiding the imperfections in a golf course, or areas of intended neglect.

Granted, that some of them may be budget induced, but others reflect the intent of the superintendent.

Unfortunately, the balance that needs to be achieved to bring about ideal conditions, the education of the membership, the funding of the budget necessary to implement the ideal conditions, and management's ability to understand and implement the ideal conditions are not always present.

[RDecker]

I once heard someone explain the job of Golf course superintendent like this:  Imagine being a chef and being asked to bake the same cake everyday but with a different set of ingredients every day.  It stuck with me as an interesting way to explain our job to a layman or non-golfer.
The golf course is a living, breathing thing and no two are alike and the same course is never the same even from day to day.  The best supers are the ones who smooth out the transitions from one set of conditions to the next and establish consistant play over an entire season and year to year.  If they can also please the majority of their members in the process then they've done something.

[John Gosselin]

RDecker, thanks for the comments.



Proper irrigation is an art not an exact science.

[A_Clay_Man]

don- Everyday is a slow day here. And that's a good thing.

Rdecker- I wonder about your assertion that the smoothing of transitions is what makes for the best. I can see and understand the need to apease membership's, but honestly, what the hell do they know? PLEASE, Don't misunderstand me, I'm not attacking you, I'm not saying that what you say is wrong, in any way. I'm just questioning the premise in hopes for further discussion.

As mentioned earlier, a golf course should and often does play differently, day to day. Am I wrong in assuming that under your premise, that aspect gets minimized?