We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Greenskeeper or Head Pro?

G

golfer777

Active member
Joined
Oct 28, 2016
Messages
187
Reaction score
135
Handicap
36
My club just announced a parting of the ways with our longtime superintendent. No known negative issues with the course. I'm concerned. I think his position is much more important for most members than the choice of a head pro. Am I wrong?
 
We are without both right now. Corporate America came in and reduced budgets and expected more profits. Pro and Super left. Surprise surprise.
 
A good greenskeeper is solid gold for a course. I’m sure the head pro can also be important, but the greenskeeper directly impacts the course agronomy and conditions.
 
CBaker said:
A good greenskeeper is solid gold for a course. I’m sure the head pro can also be important, but the greenskeeper directly impacts the course agronomy and conditions.
Click to expand...
This 100%.
 
I'm a little biased here as a former Assistant Superintendent but, I'm going with the guy that actually affects the playing conditions. I say that knowing that both are important.
 
If the golf course is the main focus for the club then for sure the superintendent is way more improtant.
 
We have part time head supers and they come and go. Course remains in good condition. The owner is very hands on so that helps in knowing what needs to be done and when. We basically only have a super for his pesticide license.

Our head pro on the other hand has been there for many years, so has our other pro/director. They do more than just run the pro shop. More often than not they can be found changing beer kegs at the bar, fixing IT problems, working on cash for the bar, restaurant and proshop. Sometimes even tending bar or on the course cutting greens.

At our place there’s no question who is more valuable. And the members love the pros. And we love our members as well
 
A good greenskeeper would be the #1 priority in my book.
 
In my experience you need both to be in sync to have a course in good condition and a well functioning organization.

One without the other will lead to issues.
 
Oh man. Both can really affect people's experience. I can't believe I'm going to say this as a player, but I think I'm going with head pro. Their effect often hits before you hit the course.
 
CBaker said:
A good greenskeeper is solid gold for a course. I’m sure the head pro can also be important, but the greenskeeper directly impacts the course agronomy and conditions.
Click to expand...

I agree with this

However i'll say a good head pro can be great for a course. We have one of the best pros in Quebec, and probably the country. Very well known ex Can Tour guy, runs the pro shop very very well. Our assistant pros he has hired have all been extremely popular. So this brings in a lot of lessons and pro shop revenue.

So they are both important but i would probably still rather an awesome greenskeeper
 
I'd go with the course superintendent.
 
Better get Carl Spackler on the horn right now

Bill Murray Reaction GIF
 
Head Pro in the face of the course. More difficult to find quality face people. Supers are important but more easily replaced.
 
No one has ever played a course in terrible condition and said ‘well at least the pro was friendly’. Both are important but the greenskeeper has a more wide ranging impact.
 
Unless you belong to a fairly high buck course you probably don't have a pro but you damn sure have a grounds superintendent. If your course condition sucks
you probably don't (or soon won't) have much membership either. The grounds super is definitely more important (IMO).
 
I totally think the super is more important. I would be far more annoyed if the course was consistently in crappy condition than if a tournament wasn’t run perfectly.
 
The head pro is certainly the face of the course, and can take input from members and make decisions on revisions to the course (removing trees, adding bunkers, etc.)

But, the course requires a good superintendent and supporting crew who can not only execute these major revisions, but more importantly monitor course conditions daily and proactively make adjustments to nip small problems before they become big problems.

They both have very important roles, however I believe that a super has a slightly more critical position in the grand scheme of things.
 
I would rather play at a course with a crappy head pro and a great superintendent than a course with a great head pro and a crappy superintendent
 
The Superintendent for definite (not sure if he is also the greens keeper). Ours is very unfriendly, and a stickler to the rules to a tee. You must show your face at the starter window, no more, we are here (all four must prove they are there). Must fight to dispute mischarges, and did I mention he is not friendly.
 
Course takeovers generally suck for everyone. One course I used to frequent was bought out by Vargo Golf. He quickly set about destroying employee morale, reducing many people's pay because they said they were tipped employees. The cart kids were told to grab bags and wipe down clubs for tips to make up for the wage reduction. Needless to say anyone worth a damn left there in short order. The pro shop staff left. Now 5 hour rounds are the norm and no employees smile any more. At least that how it was when I quit going to that pompous douchebags courses.
 
I knew a guy who was hired to be the greenskeeper for a new course that was being built on what was basically an old strip mine. He did an incredible job with the place, and it still is in top condition to this day. Once he got the place up and running, he was hired away by the county metroparks district to be greenskeeper at the 36 hole Donald Ross course there. He started working his magic and the results were easy to see. However, he told me that he had a green that was in trouble and wanted to cut down a few trees to get more sunlight on it. Except the tree huggers on the board kept denying his request. What do they know about course maintenance? So he went to a board meeting and told them the amount of the bill they might have to pay if he had to rebuild that green. Suddenly permission was granted.
 
I would say that greenskeeper is more important
 
I would say I think more about the condition of the course than the prop staff. I play mostly public courses that don’t really have a true “head pro” or if they do I have no idea who it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top