[Hart Huffines]

Have been reading Dunlop White's article on restoration
and wondered if you guys with experience could help
with a Letterman-like top 10 list of the most common
or worst mistakes a greens committee has or might
make at a private club.

Thanks very much!

[Mike_Cirba]

The #1 answer...

Hiring an architect who disdains classic architecture with the express purpose of "restoring" a classic golf course.

[Dave_Miller]

Making changes because some Green Chairman or Committee thinks it fits their game or their vision of golf.

Most have no understanding of the design intent, etc. and too often ignore what the original architect intended and designed.
Best
Dave

[mike_malone]

Making changes that are hard to rectify when they had only one shot in mind for the change.For example,planting a tree to force play away on the drive,but not realizing how that changes the second shot as originally designed.

[mike_malone]

Using my own experience as the #1 guide to making changes.This also means i do not look at photos or plans.What i remember is key.
   I once talked with a longtime member who swore there was a creek that crossed a fairway.There is no visual historical evidence,but he is unswayed.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Ornamental tree planting and it's inverse, forgetting the chainsaw.

Not restoring long-lost bunkers because someone thinks they're not in play anymore.

Not restoring greens to their former larger sizes that stretch all the way to the bunkers.

Not widening fairways back to their original wider width, which coincides with the chainsaw part.  Need wider corridors that way.

[Matt_Ward]

My Letterman List ...

*The more one thinks you know -- the less you really know!
How many times do prominent members assume they know it all, yet if they are a doctor how would they feel if a member barged into their office and gave "advice" on how to proceed with the surgery?

*Democracy lends itself to compromise and great design can be watered down with such a devote approach to democratic ideals. Is there someone on the committee who has th erespect to be designated the "first among equals?"

*Is the focus recreation based or golf based?

*Seniority means wisdom when seniority really means age!

*Trust the people you hire -- they have vision beyond the immediate issues. Their time and advice is what you purchased.

*If you sit on a committee back up your other members and keep confidnetial what needs to be kept behind closed doors. Indeed -- loose lips sink ships!

*Is the final plan really a workable plan or just PR spin to pacify people?

*Are serious $$ really in play in order for the plan to go into motion? A stalled plan or one that goes only halfway only undercuts the people involved and clouds the issue on the real intentions.

*I would also suggest that some serious communication efforts are ALWAYS kept in mind for the general membership. This beats back the rumor mill and doesn't force the committee to be defensive or always reacting to the latest gossip. Stay ahead or full behind.

Hope this helps ...

[TEPaul]

I realize this may sound far too general but the biggest mistake I see from things like green committees is their inclination to make IMPROPER ASSUMPTIONS (and right from the start) with even the best intentions! And those improper assumptions seem to be attached to so much of their ongoing reasoning that quickly becomes the vehicle for the decisions they make and the things they do!

This overall fact (improper assumptions) was best evidenced to me by the 95 year old man who sat on our master plan committee and for two years never said a word until one day after hearing for so long our complaints about how trees had corrupted our course over time said this;

"I've listened to this for a long time now and I was the one who planted those trees when I ran this committee many years ago! I (we) had no idea of the things you're saying now which I must say I could not agree with MORE! We just didn't know these things back then and if you would like me to I will stand in front of this club's entire membership and tell them that!"

Well, we almost all cried! We already knew he was a wonderful man but what a thing to say!

His point was they simply made incorrect assumptions back then about the golf course because they just didn't understand what it was all about! No defensiveness on his part just the truth!

Clearly his point now was to populate those green committees and certainly the chairmen with people who really do understand how your golf course works and if you can find no one who can do that get an architect to do it, but find one at least who works on courses like yours and understands them! Really that can't be that hard to do!

Green committees are not supposed to be the political entities that some think they should be! They are for people who know what they're talking about regarding architecture and maintenance and are willing to take responsibility for it!

On green committees nothing should reign higher than architectural and maintenance education! Any worthwhile architect will tell you that and certainly plenty have told me that.

Give the Board of Directors good and responsible recommendations from which to make decisions to do with your particular style and type of course and what works best for it alone! Don't follow the course across town without first understanding the distinctions between that course and yours.

Then let the Board of Directors get into the politics of it all with well thought out and responsible recommendations if that really is what that golf course needs!

[Mike Benham]

Lack of a multi-year (10 years minimum) master plan.  The tenure of a Greens Committee is too short (1-3 years that I know of) and in that time, whoever is in power, or speaks the loudest will get their way.  You can't have a change of focus every 2-3 years ....

[Ed_Baker]

Not communicating with the membership.

Look at some recent threads on this site as an example. Scores of responses to yardage markers on sprinkler heads. A small item in the realm of golf course maintainence but a detail that EVERY player has an opinion about. ANY change is questioned by the membership, no matter how small, if not explained properly it will be viewed as personal agenda and the committee loses member support and is essentially rendered ineffective.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hart,

They're too big.

Some try to obtain a cross section of the membership.

The closer they come to having just one member, the better.

[Ted Sturges]

Hart,

My views on this subject might be extreme, but I really think this is the way it should be.  

Role of the Green Committee:

1.  I think a good club should take great pains to hire the correct architect to develop a long-range master plan to maintain their golf course.  This architect should have experience in restoration/maintainence work for the original architect of that particular club.

2.  Once this is accomplished there is NO NEED for a Green Committee.

3.  The club's board of governors would elect a Green Chairman.

4.  The Green Chairman and the Superintendent (with the long-range master plan provided by the architect) now have a working document that everyone has agreed upon as their long-range plan.  The Green Chairman and the Superintendent simply execute this plan.

5.  The Green Chairman makes periodic reports to the board of governors on this process.

6.  There is simply no need (and with the long-range plan in hand...no justification) to discuss which tree should be planted, which bunker should be removed because somebody's wife can't get out of it, which pond should be built etc. etc. etc.  And...all the nonsensical discussions about what to use for 150 yard markers, where to place benches and ball-washers are left up to the Green Chairman.  If the board of governors doesn't like the job he or she is doing, they can remove that person.

7.  If the above list was followed, thousands of hours of wasted time in this country would have been saved.  And hundreds of golf courses would have been saved from their mistake prone memberships.

TS

[W.H. Cosgrove]

1) Not spelling out a mission for the golf course.  This in conjunction with a Master Plan should direct each decision which should be weighed against these documents.

2) A written list of maintenance standards.  Superintendents should demand these in order to protect their positions from out of control Committee chairs or Boards.

3) Positive direction as opposed to monthly bitch sessions.  A SMALL discretionary budget would promote the interchange of ideas.

4) If not final word on a budget, serious input.

5) Committees persons should be given a list of suggested  reading and membership on the Committee should be dependent on making an effort.  I would suggest Doak's 'Anatomy of a Golf Course' to begin.

6) Have fun!

[SL_Solow]

Almost all of the prior responses deal with renovation/restoration issues and most are well taken.  However greens committees get into significant trouble in dealing with day to day issues.  A few examples; 1.  Failure to support greenskeeper.  If he is any good, your greenskeeper understands what your course needs and has a long term plan for the season.  Micromanaging by amateurs leads to bad decisions and bad morale for your staff.  If your greenkeeper doesn't know what he is doing, find one who does. 2.  Insistence on letting the stimpmeter guide judgements regarding green speeds.  In the Chicago area alone, several courses have lost greens because members insisted on stimp readings of "x" during high stress periods. 3. Lack of continuity.  Continuous turnover of Chairmen and members means that as soon as someone is educated enough to make reasoned judgments, they are gone.  Its hard to execute on longer range plans under those circumstances.  4. Unnatural beautification projects.  Decorative tree and flower pklantings which impinge on the playing areas almost always emanate from committees' desire for "beauty.  Out of time, will try to add further examples.  Not a greenskeeper but a long time greens chairman and active in Greens Section of local Golf Assoc

[A_Clay_Man]

Mr. Huffines; After reading TePaul's post I was struck but what must be the key ingredient to any successful long range plan. It comes in the form of a quote from a Kenneth Braugnah film called "dead again". In it Robin Williams plays a defrocked psychiatrist who gives this advice "find out what you are, and be that". Now it seems like the hard part is knowing who and what you are or were meant to be (designers intent). I fear that if your course in question is a relatively modern one you might get that dumbdown looking "what" when you ask the questions. I sure hope i'm wrong.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Hart,

Revolving committee members usually means the recycling of bad ideas every two years or so.

Lack of stability hurts many a green committee

[Hart Huffines]

Thanks for your ideas!  Does anyone know the
location of Ron Prichard's office and if he has
a website.  I have enjoyed looking at sites
like Bobby Weed's and others.

Thanks again.

[Bullthistle]

As a green chairman, recently completing a master plan on a course designed by a golden age architect, I believe the committment to do a Master Plan provides excellent credibility and direction for the board and the green committee.
The architect should be used to make critical design decisions. This helps reduce the politic's of the minor pet peaves that members have...we hope to eliminate the subjective decisions/ nit picking and ask the members to trust the hired expert.

The thing that surprised me more than anything else about our members was their lack interest in restoration for restoration sake. Having a course designed by a golden age architect really did not mean much to the membership[ there were about 3 of us who cared] and it was not a good enough  reason to spend a lot of money. After conducting a number of small, member focus groups; I finally got it into my head that we should present the rationale for the MP in terms of projects that they wanted and could relate to...like replacing an old irrigation system, rebuilding all the bunkers, adding forward tee's etc. This made a huge difference. I could get the membership, to start nodding their heads in agreement, when we talked about re-building the bunkers etc. The classic architectural nuances become the cream.

We also took "a lot of time" talking tree's to the membership and this was probably worth the effort. After almost a year of prepping, the tree's we have cut down have not created a revolt.
BT

[ian]

The worst mistake is forming a tree sub-committee. It attract every tree hugger in the club and usually stymies the most important improvement any club can make, tree removal.

Tom made a good point, often they mean well and make improper assumptions or just simply do not have the knowledge to make an informed decision. So may be the worst mistake is the people who get elected in the first place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bullthistle,

I agree with you, very few members really care about a restoration effort.  

Many have yet to realize that most ardent supporters of golden age architecture and sympathetic restorations are in the minority in the real world, but in abundance on this site.

We live in different times, with different values, and self oriented members tend to ignore the values and topic of restoration.

I think the methodology you have employed to gain approval of the work, by your members, is the most practical.

The one area that I would take issue with, is the absolute acceptance of the architect's vision.  I think we have an obligation to the clubs we serve, to ask questions, prudent questions about the design and scope of the work.  
I think each club has an obligation, begining when they first seek to retain an architect, to spell out the clubs overall views and objectives to the architects vying for the consulting work, such that eveyone clearly understands the mission at hand.

If the objective is a sympathetic restoration, then any deviation from a true restoration must be addressed, questioned, and resolved.

Interpretation is subjective and can be fraught with peril.
Ask questions first, implement last.

Once the work is in the ground, the money is spent and it's too late to do it another way.

[Bullthistle]

Patrick,
I agree with you.
I was suggesting that the architect represents an opportunity to create a buffer between the green chair and the changes as they are being made.
As we have started to make changes...the sod is still staked and we have members who want us to tweek this or that. Time is the real test and all I was suggesting is that the MP and the architect buy you time.
Our MP group[the green chair, Club Chairman and superintendent] maintain a dialogue with the architect as required. We are not passive but we also try to be good clients.
BT

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bullthistle,

I like the size of your MP committee.

One of the things I've learned from years of involvement at golf courses, is to avoid presenting visible signs of work to be done on the golf course.

The moment lines or stakes are seen, it invites, comments, criticism and controversy, that are all unneeded.

After one particularly upsetting incident I vowed to never again make the same mistake.

What was the total cost of the work to be done under your master plan, and how is it being funded ?  Lastly, what is the time frame for completion of your master plan.  How many years until all the work is done ?

Good luck with the work, and remember, at many clubs,
no good deed goes unpunished, and the pay stinks.

[Bullthistle]

Patrick,
I am not very smart but I am learning...slowly!

We have a $2.2 mil plan. It has not been funded yet. In hopes of creating excitement we decided to do a sample hole this fall. We are almost complete. Reaction has been very positive.

I think the sample hole concept has been a good idea. People
can begin to get a feeling for how much more interesting, challenging the course could be. Our course had become over grown and many holes felt like the proverbial "bowling alley". We took down 30 some tree's on the sample hole and it is amazing to me how much crisper the hole feels. The tee ball has become more appealing to the eye, the second shot is challenging and requires a more thoughtful shot,especially for the higher handicapp player. We also re-introduced a chipping area greenside.

Finally, we took out the backdrop behind the green.This has changed the look of the green complex in a very positive way.

BT



We hope to do the plan over 2 years.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Here's a quote from the book Routing the Golf Course about greens committees:

"I've seen more golf courses improved by hurricanes than by green committees."

                     John LaFoy

[PGertner]

Mr. Bullthistle,

So far I have heard rave reviews of the work!!  I plan on seeing it soon.

PGert

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()