The Conditioning Factor -- How Much Weight?

[Matt_Ward]

One of my concerns is that conditioning CANNOT be minimized as it relates to the inherent architectural components of the course. My comments on GCGC applying too much water as well as with noted public courses in NM (UNM / Championship is just one example).

For starters -- I don't expect course's to be in mint / peak conditioning because that cycle can ebb and flow to some extent and clearly there are issues beyond the control factor for staff at times and this cannot be discounted. I also weigh the conditioning factor when the actual playing season is in effect for a particular course in that area of the country.

HOWEVER, I do expect courses to feature putting surfaces where the ball can R---O---L---L. Ditto the aspect of courses that drop too much H20 on the grounds and the inability of courses to square the fact that too many have tees that are not level. Is that too much to ask?

I'm not advocating conditioning take on equal status with shot values and the like but it's high time people realize that staying at the highest of levels is not assured because of past success.

I wonder how others feel about this and what weight they believe conditioning should play in any course assessment. At a minimum I would say no less than 10-15%. Is that too high or too low?

Lastly, I also wonder how the original architect(s) view this as they watch their work be impacted upon by how that course is maintained after their job is concluded?

[RJ_Daley]

I don't think it is too much to ask that the ball roll true on a green or that surrounds are to the architects design concepts.  But, if people could get over the expectation that various brilliant shades of green is the hallmark of a worthy golf course, then I think we would actually have more interesting courses to play.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
Some food for thought. The following question was put to a group of architects:
 
Are some of the classic and greatest course designs better now that they have been adapted to modern standards of maintenance? Or, is there something inherent in a good design independent of money

Their answers:
A. Hopefully the 'look' is independent of an annual budget
B. A big budget does not always equal good design
C. All classic courses are better now that they have been adapted to modern standards. Most of the old courses, in their original state would not be acceptable by today’s golfers. There are no courses in their original state, as time changes every golf course. This is one of the most misunderstood aspects of golf course architecture.
D. I don't think modern maintenance is the real test of the long-term significance of a course.
E. Most of the great classic courses utilize the site well, because they had to. The same could be said today. If we utilize the site well, the project is less costly to construct and maintain. We think maintenance standards have actually lessened the quality of most of the classic courses eliminating the suggested shots the architect asked for. With increased irrigation, the 'ground' game has been virtually removed from the U.S.
F. One has to look beyond the "covering" of green grass. If a course is originally built with great strategy and variety, it will have great strategy and variety whether or not the grass is in excellent condition. If grass is not in excellent condition, it can be improved through changes in maintenance. If the strategy and variety is not originally designed into the course, it will never have these characteristics regardless of how perfectly the course is
maintained. Far too much is made of the condition rather than the design of the course.
G. Great golf courses have character and excitement under modest maintenance conditions. If you need great maintenance to be "good", then the design is inherently weak.
H. The latter
I. There are qualities about sound golf course design that will make a golf course great, independent of any maintenance issues
J. Not necessarily better and if modern maintenance means more irrigation, i.e. greener and softer, it may be detrimental to "classic" courses in which designer created certain rolls and bounces but if more irrigation is used then balls tend not to bounce and roll as much.
K. New equipment has made the quality of turf much better however with that has come more radical designs which are costly and unnecessary
L. To a certain point modern standards have improved the game. The ultra fast putting surfaces have been a detriment, in my opinion. In addition, over watering, and ultra
maintained courses are putting the game out of reach financially for a lot of golfers.
M. Very, very few of the courses regarded as "classics" could have possibly achieved that status without continually being at the top of the standard of care that is current in the
industry. However, a modern maintenance program with a decent budget cannot make a classic out of a poorly designed golf course. In other words, it's a bit of a one-way street.
N. Conditioning of a golf course is one of the most important things to the player, which equates to higher maintenance costs. But this depends on the type of course. Is it a private country club where people join because they want to play on a course where the tees, fairways and greens are always perfect or is it a public golf course with native grass areas that help the superintendent cut down the amount of maintained rough? I think that a good golf course is always a function of a good routing and design. A great site always helps, too. St. Andrews comes to mind as one where the maintenance practices have changed but the course and the way it is played has not.
O. A golfer's judgment as to the quality of a hole or golf course is irrelevant unless he/she can weigh knowledgeably the three criteria noted in the above question. Modern standards of maintenance can ruin the integrity of a hole/golf course as easily as improve it.

[BCrosby]

Matt -

Conditioning ought to part of the equation. 10% sounds about right.

But that percentage will sound right only to the treehouse gang here. My regular golfing group, for example, would give conditioning a much higher weighting. Something on the order of 30%.

Likewise my golfing buddies would give a very high weighting to scenery/views. Exhibit A - Waterville. Again, if you and I might give aesthetics a 10% weighting, my buddies would put it at 30% or so.

These aren't dumb guys. To the contrary. It's just that they have a limited interest in golf course architecture. A golf course is a place for gaming, betting. If it's well groomed with nice views, they've got no more questions.

I've had very limited success in getting them to share in my interests in shot values, strategy, maintenance meld and the rest.

None of this would matter except for the fact that my buddies are representative of the guys at clubs that pick architects. For them a well-conditioned course with some pretty views is what makes 'em happy. Fazio understands that formula. Others do too.

My point is not that conditioning/aesthetics ought to be given a higher weighting. They shouldn't. My point is that our views of these things consitute a distinct minority. And, thus, course ratings that use these weightings will seem very odd to most people.

Bob

  

[A_Clay_Man]

I strongly believe that in any architectural analysis conditioning should receive zero, that's zippo, consideration.

It's like critiqueing a painting because of the frame it's in.

Conditions can and do change. What if it was Mother Nature who put too much H2O down? You'll excuse that, right? The fact that these courses must adhere to budgetary constraints and over-water, because their clientel wants the green to hold a seven wood from 160, should be no factor in the design evaluation. But, it is prudent for any critic to point out the loss of pleasure, fun or whatever gets lost from individual maintenance practicies.

Another thing I found to be true is that while I'd love a perfect lie everytime, I have learned to appreciate a shitty one, because of the additional challenge. Especially if I miss the fairway and even when i just miss it.
That's life. Deal with it.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

That's a very enlightened view, one that most if not all participants here would share - maybe not taking it down to zilch, because on the extreme awful conditions are no fun for anyone, and this can be partly the fault of the architect if maintenance concerns are blown off in the design... but still, giving it little weight in architectural analysis seems to be a given for this group.

The problem is, Bob Crosby's post is absolutely right on the mark.  The view in here is a tiny minority of the golf world, however much we wish it were different... Nearly everyone I know outside of here who plays the game thinks like Bob's buddies - give them great conditions and nice views and that is all they require or care about.

So although it's sort of sad to say, to whom do you market a golf course?  Us or them?

So long as making/keeping money matters, it ain't gonna be us.

So I'd say for Matt's purposes a compromise is fair.  If the masses give it 30% weight, and we give it 10 at most, Matt ought to use 20% for his publication.

TH

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

To take your position seriously -- the Black Course at Bethpage would have been rated years ago even when rubber mats were used for tees!

Adam -- please help my memory -- aren't you the guy who told me how happy you were to see Pinon Hills use less water and have the "bounce" back when playing the esteemed Ken Dye layout in Farmington?

I'll say this again -- I'm not advocating anything near Augusta like conditions but far too many times facilities 'FREELY' water their layouts to excess and Mother Nature is not to be blamed for their ignorance / stupidity.

The idea that "less is more" regarding water usage is making headway with a number of clubs but there are still far too many who have superintendents who are either "ordered" to keep their course green to the max or simply do it because they have such little understanding on the strategic nature of the game and how it ties to the daily preparation of the course they operate.

[Dan Kelly]

Matt --

How much weight ... for what purpose?

For evaluating the architecture?

Or for determining which courses to recommend to one's readers, and how enthusiastically to recommend them?

If you're evaluating the architecture, my answer is: None (unless the architecture is the CAUSE of bad conditioning). I'd presume a perfect Maintenance Meld for every course architecture being evaluated.

If you're determining which courses to recommend to your readers, and how enthusiastically: I'd put as much weight on Conditioning as that course demands! Some courses, to be enjoyable for anyone (even for the nut cases in this "treehouse"), have to be in great shape; others (even for Joe Sixpack and Mary Wineglass) don't.

I don't think any fixed percentage makes sense.

---

All --

Are you honestly telling me that you DON'T CARE -- and CARE INTENSELY -- whether you get a good roll on the putting greens?

If you truly don't care, I have to guess that you are:

(a) a better man than I am, Gunga Din; or

(b) a lousy putter.

I don't care if the tees are perfect. I don't care if the fairways are lush. I don't care if the rough is even. I don't care if the bunkers are impeccable (though I do care that they don't dump enough sand in them to cover my shoes and make every bunker shot COMPLETE guesswork).

I do care -- a great deal -- whether a well-struck putt will act as though it's been well-struck. If it doesn't, I'd just as soon be rolling dice.

Kick me out of the treehouse!

[THuckaby2]

You can stay in any treehouse I'm a part of, Dan.  But maybe you're right, you don't belong here... that all made TOO much sense...  

TH

[Lou_Duran]

I recently played a good Keith Foster course, the Tradition at Cypresswood (NE Houston).  While I could see and appreciate some of the architectural features, the poor condition of the course took away some of my ability to experience it.  Sparse turf, wet entries, and the condition of the fringes and bunkers are difficult to overlook.  Given the "proper" maintenance as briefly described by Dick Daley, the course would be one notch up in my book.  As it is, it would receive a "visit if in the immediate area and have some time to kill" recommendation, versus "a should play if near the Houson area".  BTW, the architect provides a few alternate tees to some holes changing the angle of play by as much as 50+ degrees.  

[Dan Kelly]

You can stay in any treehouse I'm a part of, Dan.  But maybe you're right, you don't belong here... that all made TOO much sense...  

Oh, my God, I just flashed (no pun intended) back on the last time I was in a literal treehouse!

We were in 7th grade. My cousin Doug and his next-door neighbor David, both good friends of mine, had a treehouse in the woods between their houses. We went up there one cool (spring or fall) day and played Strip Poker!

The cards all fell my way.

I had 'em buck-naked by the end. Both of 'em.

Didn't have to take off so much as a sock.

I think my treehouse days are over. My Strip Poker days, too.

I certainly hope so!

[Jeff_Lewis]

There was a good deal of the ambiance/tradition factor in the most recent Golf Digest course ratings and for good reason. However, having a full category for conditioning is probably appropriate, as great architecture requires proper conditioning to be appreciated. If an architect builds holes with open approaches and the fairways are too soft to allow the ball to roll into the green; if the course has wild greens and they are too fast; if the course has subtle, interesting greens and they are too slow; if bunkers that are intended to collect wayward shots cannot because of turf conditions or rough around them, etc etc. The rankings are not the top 100 architectural achievements, they are the top 100 courses. Conditioning matters.

[ForkaB]

Adam

The analogy is not about pictures and frames but symphonies and orchestras.  When I play a great course that is poorly (or just unmeldly) maintained, it is like listening to Beethoven's 9th played by a 9th grade school band.

And, the most important thing, as Dan Kelly so rightly says, relates to the greens.  Greens that do not putt "true" might just as well be mulched up and used as compost for the flower gardens around the driving range, IMHO.......

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I like my golf courses firm.  That is saying something since I live in the Pacific Northwest.  

That said, I think I can tell more about a golf courses condition during a maintenance period.  Aeration, clean up, repairs on bunkers can all tell a tale about how the Super and his crew are caring for the golf course.  It is all well and good to show up for the Member-Guest and see perfect conditions, but how does it look when nature isn't going the Super's way?

[A_Clay_Man]

When, or if, I travel to see a new course and the greens are punched, do I think less of the course because the greens sucked that day? NO. I understand the necc for the bumps. I'ts up to me to adapt to the situation by putting better. I also know the conditions will change.

Again, Seperation between maintenance and architecture is essential to seeing beneath the fabric to the design. If one is focused on how bad the conditions are they are likely to miss an appreciation for the architecture.

This pent-up demand for ideal or lush conditions is consumer driven and if there's one opinon I always seek out it is the consumer.Mostly, so I can think different.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

That's all understood - really a given.

But did you ever play Harding Park in San Francisco?  All the great design in the world matters for naught if the course is unplayable, as it was there for so many years.  I could never in good conscience have recommended that anyone play there... walk it, look at it, study its design, sure, if that's what one is into... but playing the course was an exercise in frustration.  Bad lies are one thing, non-existent fairways and greens that one could only chip on are another.

I guess it comes down to this:  are these works of art, or fields on which to play a game?  I guess they can be both... but to me they are way more of the latter.  Given that, conditions do matter.

TH

[Allan Long]

The conditioning factor has always been a hot topic with me. If I play CPC and the course is not in top condition, is it going to take away from the experience, probably not. But having said that, I do think conditioning plays a role.

Within the last year I had the chance to play a course rated in the top-100 by all three major publications, but came away a little disappointed -- not because of the layout or test
presented -- but because of the conditioning, or what I
thought was sub-standard conditioning in a few instances. In
an age when most think that if a course doesn't look like ANGC
it is in poor shape, I can assure you that I don't feel that way.

What got me when I played the course in question was that there were a few greens where weeds were not only visable, but effecting the roll of the putt. Now this was not commonplace mind you, and I can live with weeds in the rough, fairway or on tees, but not the green, especially on a course that is highly regarded.

I would say that 15% is a fair number.

[Matt_Ward]

Adam:

Let me point out another course we've both played -- The Hideout (Monticello, UT). I really enjoyed the layout and said so here on GCA. The rolling land and a number of the holes are really done well -- particularly the 9th, 16th and 18th, to name just three.

However, the course was not ready for anything resembling a fair accounting of golf skill because the greens in all but a few instances were not ready -- many in fact were either partially covered or simply uneven in their overall appearnce. To say conditioning is not a factor then why play the game -- why not rate the best drawings and go from there?

Rich makes a good point about how music played at the high level and at the 9th grade level can make all the difference. The issue about conditioning is that it needs to be sufficient for the purposes of maximizing what the architect originally intended. When courses are ill-prepared it simply robs the layout of being seen for what it truly possesses -- the Black at Bethpage used to be the prime contender for top honors -- now I believe Yale deserves that dubious distinction.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- Heres a pefect example where we can agree to disagree. The hideout- I noticed the conditions of the greens, but I was giddy over the movement of the land, the deception used by the architect and the fact that i used every club in the bag. I saw one thing(contrary build-up of the first par 3 green) I thought was architecturally out of place. I told Forrest my opinion and that was that, It was more than just seeing though, it was a feeling. I wanted to feel the hillside and use it but because of the build up, it was not only stifeled but the putt breaks uphill. &  As I stated before the attitude of the towns people and even the group I went thru, were top notch. So, as has been realized on other subjects, different tastes and opinion on what's prefered, is just that, subjective.

I am not disagreeing with anyone that the average Joe puts a much bigger emphasis on conditions, if they are even aware of them. But as intimated previously, I want to distance myself from most anything the majority of the masses emulate.

The other valid point someone made above was about what someones role is in evaluating the course. For Journalistic purposes I feel anyone not reporting the conditions would...would... would....... work for the  NY times

[Mike_Sweeney]

Matt -

Conditioning ought to part of the equation. 10% sounds about right.

But that percentage will sound right only to the treehouse gang here. My regular golfing group, for example, would give conditioning a much higher weighting. Something on the order of 30%.

Likewise my golfing buddies would give a very high weighting to scenery/views. Exhibit A - Waterville. Again, if you and I might give aesthetics a 10% weighting, my buddies would put it at 30% or so.

These aren't dumb guys. To the contrary. It's just that they have a limited interest in golf course architecture. A golf course is a place for gaming, betting. If it's well groomed with nice views, they've got no more questions.

I've had very limited success in getting them to share in my interests in shot values, strategy, maintenance meld and the rest.

None of this would matter except for the fact that my buddies are representative of the guys at clubs that pick architects. For them a well-conditioned course with some pretty views is what makes 'em happy. Fazio understands that formula. Others do too.

My point is not that conditioning/aesthetics ought to be given a higher weighting. They shouldn't. My point is that our views of these things consitute a distinct minority. And, thus, course ratings that use these weightings will seem very odd to most people.
  

Bob,

That has to be one of the more insightful post at GCA that I have seen to date.

What did you think of the conditions up at Yale this weekend, assuming the weather allowed you to play with Geoffrey? They have been doing a lot of work on the greens, and they were still a little bumpy on Memorial Day weekend.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

I loved Yale. Flat out loved it. Best Raynor course I've played. By a long shot. Having Geoffery along to give the history of every hill and knoll made it even more special. (We drove our poor playing companion nuts with our talk. After the round I asked this guy if he would like to join us for a drink. He quickly declined and couldn't get off the premises fast enough.)

My post above was inspired by Yale. After our round, I returned to the college reunion and told everyone I met what a great course Yale was. Virtually everyone poo-pooed it, saying the course was in bad shape, there were bare spots, bunkers weren't maintained, etc.

My thought (unexpressed for the most part) was that these folks were really missing the boat. Then I thought, no, these guys are the norm. My friends would say the same thing. For them conditioning is the beginning and end of their assessment of a course.

Then it hit me that I was the one out in left field. Along with the treehouse gangsters here.

Bob

[Matt_Ward]

Bob:

Just keep in mind this -- the role of conditioning is still a factor in assessing what a course IS -- not what it MIGHT BE.

The issue with Yale astounds me given the amount of $$ that exists within New Haven and all the alums!!!

I can understand how Bethpage disintegrated until its recent resurrection. I can't fathom the mindset that allows Yale to wallow with such inferior turf conditions.

[A_Clay_Man]

Here's an example of an experience which led me to my opinions.

The famous 12th at Pacific Grove. Possibly one of the most beautiful spots on the peninsula. It's vast vista of the Pacific is geographically placed at that last little curl of land before the coast turns east to form the Monterey Bay.

Before I started playing there the backnine's fairways were framed(bordered)by Iceplant. As many are still, so was the area past the sand dune on the right corner of the dogleg, but not anymore. The removal of the Iceplant has left an area of sandy, clumpy sparsely grassed conditions. At first I wondered why the damn super couldn't grow grass there. But then one day it hit me, this is the way it should be or really is on linksland. Missing the fairway on the right was common occurance, for me, and eventually it was that, less than perfect lie, that led me to the proper way to make a birdie on that hole from a poor drive.

Point being, when I was just an average Joe, I subjectively wanted an easier time of it. But once I thought things thru and realized that my subjectivity had little to do with anything, I appreciated the fact that I was dealt a lie that required more than technology, it required the imagination to play a shot that wouldn't go as far but would put me in a place where I could still achieve the objective of as few strokes as poss.

What's your justification for your subjectivity?

[BCrosby]

Matt -

I agree entirely.

There are levels of irony here. The first is that Yale has - literally - unlimited capital resources at its disposal.

The double irony is that never has there been a course that would climb so dramatically in the rankings with so little addtional investment.

The triple irony is that anyone should have to convince some of the brightest people in the world that they own an important, historical golf course.

Bob