[Matt_Ward]

Be interested among the tribe here at what level does conditioning become an issue in one's overall assessment of courses.

As a dedicated public links player I used to play bethpage Black long before the powers-that-be understood the potential of the place. At the time the Black required a shoulder turn on most putts but I didn't care because the overall layout fascinated me.

Now, I try to balance the conditioning situation on a few factors. For example, if neighboring courses are in good shape and in the same status situation (public to public) then I expect the course I'm at to be no less in conditioning terms. I understand that weird things can happen to one place and next door can be much better.

In my mind, conditioning is more of a secondary factor. There are other "first among equal" elements I weigh right up front.

Be curious to know the mindsets of the people here and how much conditioning needs to be weighed and at what level.

Thanks ...

[Kyle Harris]

Matt,

I've always had a saying that good conditioning doesn't save bad design, but good design can save bad conditioning.

That being said, I do believe there is a critical point where the conditioning of the golf course (including mowing patterns) can take away from the architecture.

I've held held to the principle that greens should stimp between a 9 and 11 depending on the amount of contour.

Fairways should be firm enough to allow for some roll and bounce on a tee shot.

Corridors should be such that all significant angles of play can be had.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Matt,

Good question.  I find that most panelists think conditioning is the easiest of the categories to rate and remember long after the round.  As a result, I would tend to believe that it weighs more heavily in a person's overall evaluation of a course.  I guess the real test is how many great venues in so-so condition are on the top 100... and how many so-so designs in fabulous condition are on the same list.  My guess is the scales are tilted towards the latter.

Panelists have to dig deeper and not always judge a book by its cover.

[Matt_Ward]

Geoffrey:

Good point -- but I have to ask how much do you weigh conditioning or do you give a blind check-off if the layout is outstanding?

Case in point for me -- Bethpage Black and likely Harding Park for the Bay Area guys here.

I agree with you that too many people fall-in-love with the places that are in mint shape but are nothing more than dumb blondes who have the outside veneer but no depth.

[Greg Tallman]

Matt,

Your dumb blonde analogy is spot on. The vacation golfer would prefer what??? The dumb blonde of course.

The serious golfer would be looking more for "marriage material" and looking in depth at the overall package.

As for the panelists I would say they are all over the map on this issue with most NOT unduly impressed by perfect maintenance with some wowed to the point of rating a course too highly on occassion.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Matt,

I weigh it evenly with the other categories, because I'd like to think that I am very deliberate about giving each area of consideration an independent assessment/score from each other.  Does that make sense?

All too often I think that the conditioning creeps into the other categories for less experienced panelists.  Scores that should be a 7 (on a scale to 10) creep up higher because the course is in a nice neat package and vice versa for poor conditioning.  Taking Bethpage (one of my favorites I might add) as an example, I doubt that #5 at Bethpage would have been one of Golf Magazine's Top 18 holes prior to the upgrade in conditioning even though the hole's design has basically remained unchanged in 60+ years.

[Mike_Young]

Matt,
I think it is the most major of the considerations.  I just think it is a subconscious element that many try to hold out of the equation but it just can't happen.   JMO

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Watson has said that if a course needs to be conditioned well to play well, its not a good course.  I agree.

Put another way, I don't - and gawd knows most golfers don't - want to pay their share of the extra $500-750K a year it takes to go from average but good maintenance to "perfect" maintenance.  I am amazed at how close conditions can be from one super to then next with a dramatically different budget.  I don't care about the flowers, the cart path edging or whatever else that extra money buys, really.

Of course, I grew up (after my first few rounds at Medinah) playing public courses, so I am conditioned that way.  But I still think I am not philosophically attuned to ever greater levels of perfection, even after being fortunate enough to see it a few times.

[Adam Clayman]

Major consideration? When the weeds are on the greens.

It's laughable to hear Matt go on and on about wet the New Mexico courses are. Yes they are wet, especially in the mornings. Play twilight golf. They have ET rates that are off the charts.  If you really want to study the architecture, go play in the winter. But don't criticise a course until you know what an ET rate is.

Conditions change easily. Architecture endures. If you study architecture ignore any adverse conditions. Knowing that you are only catching the course on one day of it's life.

If you are more interested in the experience, knock your socks off and compare it to ANGC. Just don't be fooled you played at a great course because the conditions were what you consider ideal.

[Matt_Ward]

Geoffrey:

Conditioning comes after the following for me when I review layouts ...

1). The overall land the course occupies
2). The quality of the routing
3). The aspects of high level shot values which include:
     a- the need to hit all clubs in your bag when playing
     b- the wherewithal for shot control (movement and
         ability to alter the height of shots as needed)

Conditioning for me comes after this because it needs to serve in a complimentary manner to what the first three elements I mentioned as a chief priority.

There are a number of courses that offer first rate conditioning but have no depth or real attraction for future plays. Sadly, too many raters view conditioning as a first among equals and I frankly don't see it that way.

Adam:

Wake up and smell the coffee partner. I've been to New Mexico on numerous occasions and yes there are places -- shall I name them all -- that overwater because they feel it's better to give golfers conditions that are almost soggy than to provide dry conditions where roll-out of the ball can happen.

The main culprits include UNM / Championship, to name just one, but I am happy to say that Pat Brockwell's assistant at Black Mesa has taken the job and there is hope that such past sins will be righted.

I've played golf at all times of the year and day when there. I don't need you to lecture me with your barkings about what I don't know. You are the guy who told me that Pinon Hills had cut back on their H20 usage but the sad reality is that it was still wet when I played it last -- it was only LESS wet than what you were used to when there.

[Mark Arata]

I always could forgive rough conditions on tee boxes, fairways, even collars of the greens, but not the greens themselves. I also played Bethpage back when it was 7.00 to walk and was in horrid condition from tee to green, but the greens were playable, and the holes were beyond memorable, even if they were severely run down at the time.

Best recent example for me was/is Apache Stronghold. It wasnt in the best shape from tee to green, in some places, it was barren of grass in the fairways, but the greens rolled true all day long, and it is still one of, if not the best desert course I have ever played. If they ever got that course in even average condition from tee to green, it would jump right back up in the rankings.

Just my opinion.........

[Doug Ralston]

Keith Foster did one of the best designs I can imagine called 'The Tennessean'. Sadly, lack of play, largely due to location, has hurt people's view of the value of playing there. But I would gladly endure it to play again, if it were near to me.

Conditioning is a huge factor in public courses. But, some designs overcome all conditioning factors.

[Adam Clayman]

Actually Matt, I wasn't lecturing you. Sorry if it came off that way. I was using the collective you, when I said you. Sorrs.

I do have a scenario that fits your thread.

Bayside @ Lake McConoughy.

Dave and Dan's other course in Western Nebraska. I played there today and the grass was lush and greens were very nice. This is all knowing how small of a crew, Elton has to do all the work. However, the lushness has taken it's toll on old Bayside. Supplying the native areas with fuel, recovery is near impossible, even if one is fortunate to find ones ball. But it's more than that. The designed kickplates, punchbowls and other usable ground, is just too damn soft to use creatively.
The firmness issue can easily change, but the over-grown surrounds is another matter, that would require extensive labor to get under control.

They have recently finalized plans to build a sixty unit hotel/motel, making it a destination. As of now the "play the west" is working out very well for them, and a few more townhouses have been built alongside the 18th fairway.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

That is most unfortunate -- I really like Bayside although quite a few people feel otherwise.

For the facility to be thaaaaat wet on purpose speaks to the ignorance of the ownership and those underneath them.

A pity.

[Adam Clayman]

Matt, They know what their customers want, and they need customers.

Im not defending their approach, just understand it.

The thing I find fascinating is how close, I find, the line between too wet, and firm enough, is.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

You don't build a solid customer base by indulging people who are ignorant on what the design should be -- ergo -- the inmates don't run the asylum.

That takes leadership from the people running the show. Caving in only alleviate the immediate issue but in the long run undercuts the very nature of what Proctor & Axland created.

[Adam Clayman]

If Cliff Roberts and Hootie can degrade Dr. Mack's and Mr. Jones' little course, anybody can. Isn't that the message?

[Matt_Ward]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

What was done to ANGC -- by Hootie most notably has been a disaster in my mind to what the original intent of ANGC is about.

The changes / improvements made by Roberts pale in comparison.

The second cut, the added trees and the inane length on #7 are all idiotic maneuvers IMHO.

If following ANGC is considered progress then heaven help us all.

[Jason Hines]

Adam,

As you know I played WH and Bayside a couple of weeks ago, Bayside for the first time in 5 years.  I was hoping the conditions were wet and slow because it was 105 and with a 25 mph wind, apparently that is the year round condition?  It is a shame, Bayside is a gem.  

[Matt_Ward]

I just wonder for others what percentage of the total golf package does conditioning play?

For example, for me the items I mentioned were the primary ingredients -- only after they are part of the experience does the conditioning then take root.

Others may place the conditioning requirement at a much higher premium when playing.

[PThomas]

Conditioning rarely if ever improves my opinion of a golf course.


That said.....
I guess that is more or less what Watson was quoted as saying by Jeff Brauer.

I might wish a golf course to be in better condition than it is at a given time, but I can see past that. I also don't raise an opinion due to perfect conditioning. (Au contraire too perfect conditioning is a detriment to all that is holy in golf.)



Two examples, one near and dear to my heart, one an over-rated bete-noire.

Lehigh CC is a course that could be in a lot better condition, but current conditions do not make it a bad course by it not being in its top condition.

Conversely:The fantastic conditioning of Muirfield Village does not make it any better than than the good housing track it actually is.

well said sir

bu I can see what some courses worry so much about/spend a lot on conditioning, since it is the number 1 factor mentioned when surveys are done..for some silly reason

[Sean_A]

For me conditioning is a minor issue.  There are exceptions and I will use a few GCA sacred cows as examples.  

Painswick: The conditioning issues at this course are not quite unforgivable, but they surely cut down on my enjoyment.  The course is very wet for much of the year.  In a land where golf is played 12 months a year this is really a turn off.  

Tobabcoo Road: The course is overly wet for reasons I don't understand.  Unlike Painswick, this doesn't completely turn me off because the design is so good and my shoes don't pull off in the mud.  

Ciao

Sean

[PThomas]

Hogan said he didn't care what the fairways were like, as long as the greens were ok

Apache Stronghold has had reports of poor conditioning, but I am there next time I get out that way

[SB]

I think many of you have seen this already, but here's what golfers are saying.

http://www.gcsaa.org/news/special/golfdigestavidgolferresearch.asp

Granted, it was done by the GCSAA, but I personally believe the results.

[cary lichtenstein]

I think conditioning is vastly overrated. I like it nice, but give me good architecture and topgraphy over $2 milllion dollar budget any day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()