News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Maybe someone here will post the recent announcement to panelists, but the definition of Conditioning is being changed for Golf Digest rankings!  No longer should courses be rewarded great conditioning scores when they look like Augusta National and play like dart boards.   

Some have always looked at conditioning in this regard, however, this new definition can only help the cause and will be applauded by superintendents everywhere. 

Whether you like the rankings or not, this is good news for the game of golf.
Mark
« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 09:04:55 PM by Mark_Fine »

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Very good news.

Our new head greenkeeper has stated he wants to cut our irrigation usage by about 60% over last year. 

A very good move by GD - I hope it serves as a catalyst.

Jason Connor

  • Karma: +0/-0
But will raters pay attention?

GD can define each criteria.  But individual raters will interpret as they see fit.  And I fear too many don't see conditioning the way most of us here do.


We discovered that in good company there is no such thing as a bad golf course.  - James Dodson

Matt_Ward

Mark:

The standing of Augusta goes way beyond the inclusion or lessening of the conditioning category.

The reality is that The Masters has been the driving force in convincing (brainwashing if you will) people into believing that what and how things are at Augusta is the way things need to be across the board. Augusta, IHMO, has lost its way in the last number of years and is no longer the golden boy drumming with everyone else following right behind.

Frankly, Digest has been asleep at the switch regarding the recent changes instituted from Hootie and the gang. Credit Golfweek for beginning to see August as it is today and how it has grossly abandoned its original meaning. Conditioning clearly has influenced people and likely many Digest raters -- the real meaning of Augusta needs to be seen by those who should have weighed in a lot sooner than now.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
The new definition.

 We're Changing the Definition of 'CONDITIONING'       
3/14/2008
The definition of Conditioning has changed in the 2008 Panelist Handbook. Please click on "Read More" for complete details.

Experts tell us a smart first step for any golf course is to cut back on water usage. Drier turf is usually healthier, less-susceptible to diseases, and provides more roll to tee shots and smoother surfaces for putting. Less water means lower electric bills for high-volume pumps and less fuel for mowers used less often. Granted, the shade of turf-grass might be less intense.

To do our part, at the urging of some members of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, Golf Digest has redefined the Conditioning category used in our various course rankings. The old definition asked panelists, “How would you rate the playing quality of tees, fairways and greens when you last played the course?” The new definition now reads, “How fast, firm and rolling were the fairways, and how firm, yet receptive, were the greens on the date you played the course?”

This definition has nothing to do with the color of the grass or the perfection of a lie. It rewards courses that water less (but sensibly) and makes it easy for each panelist to evaluate conditions on the basis of golf shots. It takes into account all types of turfgrasses. Non-overseeded Bermuda fairways will be more firm and rolling than overseeded Bermuda, for example, and lean, off-green bent-grass fairways offer much more roll than saturated bent. Clearly, we don’t look kindly on greens that are thatchy or squishy, but we’re not in favor of concrete-hard greens. They must be firm, yet still receptive, to earn high points.

What about situations of inclement weather? Because the first rule of good golf architecture is drainage, drainage, drainage, this definition rewards that. A course whose fairways and greens don’t easily drain after a normal rain (or after routine irrigation) deserves lower conditioning scores than courses with excellent drainage.

Great conditioning is not striped mowing patterns in the rough, or uniform lies in bunkers. That’s overindulgent cosmetics. We think every club would benefit by adopting our definition as a standard for course conditioning.

Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

John Gosselin

  • Karma: +0/-0
I wouldn't call this revolutionary, but it is great for golf.

Superintendents, Plant Pathologist, Turfgrass Breeders, and some Universities have been beating this drum for the last 25 years or so. 
Great golf course architects, like great poets, are born, note made.
Meditations of a Peripatetic Golfer 1922

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
“How fast, firm and rolling were the fairways, and how firm, yet receptive, were the greens on the date you played the course?”

...Clearly, we don’t look kindly on greens that are thatchy or squishy, but we’re not in favor of concrete-hard greens. They must be firm, yet still receptive, to earn high points.



Thanks Tommy for the quote and Mark for the heads up...


Can we dig into these parts of the criteria a bit more just to see what people think when they read..."firm, yet receptive"...and "we're not in favor of concrete-hard greens."

Sounds like they are asking the needle to be really threaded here...

Wayne and Tom Paul taalk about this idea of "green and firm" by hand syringing and I have disagreed with it as something that should be promoted because of the cost. When I read the green specific portions of the descrpition Tommy posted, that's what I envision...a subset of the greens staff out on the course with their own hose spotting each area of brown and giving it a quick rinsing.

Seems to me like  astep in the right direction, but not one without risk...

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jason,
I sure hope raters pay attention.  Hopefully it helps set a different perspective/standard from what was viewed as great conditioning in the past.  

Matt,
You have to start sometime.  Unless the GD rankings go away (I don't think they are  ;) ) this change can only be good for golf as they are very influencial.  

John,
It is a big change for Golf Digest and I trust (and hope) it will have a major influence on the rankings.  

I believe that sooooo many people (raters included) base the quality of a golf course on how it is conditioned.  Think about it, most golfers when asked about a course talk about it from the standpoint of how great of condition it was in.  They don't often talk about how great the design was.  So this can only help and those courses that are out there overwatering and making everything perfectly green and lush are going to find their overall ratings dropping.  Maybe superintendents can point to what John mentioned in his post and add to their argument that if we keep overmaintaining our golf course, the ranking will suffer.  

Furthermore, maybe courses like Somerset Hills, just to name one, that keep their courses dried out and a little rough around the edges (I love the place/conditioning) will get recognized as examples of great maintenance practices.

Time will tell but this is a big step in the right direction for golf.

Mark




Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Perhaps now Bandon Dunes Resort's three courses will rate near the top of the Conditioning category, where they belong, instead of near the bottom of the 100 Greatest (where they have been).

I love most of the definition -- especially the part about it having nothing to do with the color of the grass, even though it's members and not raters who want their courses green and I don't see that changing because of a GOLF DIGEST memo.  The only part I don't understand is the "firm, yet receptive" part about the greens.  That's as much of a contradiction as their "difficult, yet fair" definition for shot values.

John Kavanaugh

Tom,

I agree that the fairways and green firmness at Bandon Resorts is the best I have ever seen.  I do have a problem with the slow greens because of it being a resort.  Why should privates be held to a higher standard when the list does not make a distinction?

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
I agree about the firm but receptive term and have commented to them about it.  Next task will be tackling the tough but fair definition but this is a great start with conditioning. 

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
"off-green bent-grass fairways offer much more roll than saturated bent."

Isn't there a fine line between "off color" bent and bent so overstressed that you lose the fairways in much the same manner that you lose the greens? 
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

John Kavanaugh

I agree about the firm but receptive term and have commented to them about it.  Next task will be tackling the tough but fair definition but this is a great start with conditioning. 

I'm happy that Digest has the low handicap requirement so we know the raters can hit the proper shot to stop a ball.  Last thing anyone needs is some 14 handicap bitching that the greens will not hold.  They really just need to focus on their "Walk in the park".

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is the GD panelist handbook online somewhere?

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark:

The standing of Augusta goes way beyond the inclusion or lessening of the conditioning category.

The reality is that The Masters has been the driving force in convincing (brainwashing if you will) people into believing that what and how things are at Augusta is the way things need to be across the board. Augusta, IHMO, has lost its way in the last number of years and is no longer the golden boy drumming with everyone else following right behind.

Frankly, Digest has been asleep at the switch regarding the recent changes instituted from Hootie and the gang. Credit Golfweek for beginning to see August as it is today and how it has grossly abandoned its original meaning. Conditioning clearly has influenced people and likely many Digest raters -- the real meaning of Augusta needs to be seen by those who should have weighed in a lot sooner than now.

Matt,
This is two threads in two days you've spewed venom about Augusta.
First on a thread about a guy REALIZING HIS DREAM to visit Augusta.
The fact that you don't like a slight cut of rough or a few added trees (I'm not crazy about them either)
shouldn't result in dashing a guy's idealism about visiting somewhere he's always wanted to go.

Also you (and MANY others) bring up Augusta as the overwatered, overgreen problem with golf courses and their conditioning today.
IT'S RYE GRASS-it's green.(the same as any other course that overseeds)
It's typically firm and fast once established IF THE WEATHER COOPERATES which it often hasn't in the spring lately.

If someone chooses to overwater their course don't blame Augusta
 ("brainwashing and convincing" are you kidding???)
-blame the members/super/committee of that club-

Has the Golden Boy lost his shine? Go to ebay and price a ticket.
The market (which clearly lacks your sophistication) does not agree with you.


"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
What if there's a rainstorm the night before?

Matt_Ward

Jeff:

Let's roll the tape back shall we.

Augusta has only two tee boxes now - the one for The Masters and the one at 6,300 yards or thereabouts.

The place decided -- a massive overreaction in my opinion -- after Tiger's breakthrough win in '97. Lenthening a few holes to deal with technology would have been more than sufficient. Not so for Hootie and the gang there.

Instead we had to hear about mowing patterns reversed, "second cut" rough that flies in the face of the fairway patterns that worked so well for so long, adding trees to the point where the course becomes a bowling alley (see the inane changes at #7, #11 and #15, to name just three.

Hey Jeff -- wake up with all due respect. I didn't rain on anyone's visit to Augusta -- I simply opined that Augusta of today is no longer the same Augusta I remember visiting back during my days at Carolina when I went to The Masters as a near religious moment ! People who are oblivious to what has happened there will not for one iota of time concern themselves with what I have to say. I still enjoy a number of aspects tied to the tournament and course and mentioned it in my post on this topic.

Augusta wants it both ways and has been treated in a very soft manner by way too many media people. I salute Golfweek and its recent ratings as a more just indicator on where the course has gone with all of these so-called "improvements" to the course.

Jeff, Joe Sixpack and all the rest of the people who go to the tournament are not as zoned in concerning the nature of what has happened -- pre Tiger and post. They will attend no matter if the course is stretched to 8,000 yards and if trees are planted in the middle of the fairway.

To yourself a favor and check out the number of birdies / eagles that have been made at Augusta - prior to the changes and since then. The Augusta of ole times where no lead was safe and where charges -- not simply stumbles -- were part and parcel of what used to make that event so grand indeed. Augusta used to be the leader in changes / improvements made -- now it is simply overreating because of the effect from just a very small handful of players.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,
Maybe another way to look at the Augusta debate is by thinking about this question - What positive influence has Augusta had on the world of golf course architecture and conditioning?  I would ask the same for U.S. Open setups.  Have they done anything good for golf course conditioning and design in general? 
Mark

Tim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tommy Williamsen - Bent grass is not very tolerant of drought.  Brown (really Tan) is hard to come back from.  When stressed, Bent turns Blue/Grey. if you don't get some water on it and quick, it can go pretty fast.  Fairways are more forgiving because the crowns are more sheltered than on green and the amount of water in the leaf blade is greater because it's much longer. 
As  for the comment about hand watering, most supers hate it and will do it because they only want water on certain stressed (high & dry) areas and not the whole green.  The low swales may have plenty of water still available and to water with perimeter irrigation may over-irrigate those areas.  And on courses that are not lucky enough to have part-circle, inside/outside heads on greens, full-circle syringing will also water the greenside bunkers.  So, although a costly pain-in-the-ass, handwatering has it's place.
I liken the GD change to something a British super told me once, "you Yanks grow grass, we Brits produce playing surfaces".  Think about it.
Coasting is a downhill process

Wayne_Freedman

  • Karma: +0/-0
 
God help us when accounting for public opinion. Have heard golfers rave about conditioning, and call courses 'great' with little consideration of playability.  Have heard many other golfers say a course was great because it was hard...that they lost 25 balls and shot 130.

One should hope that raters know better.

When rating, you cannot use the generic word 'conditions' to fairly compare an Augusta National with a Bandon Dunes or Old Course because they are different kinds of golf courses.  Augusta is, essentially, a manicured television studio, while Bandon should look and feel natural. What works at one would not at the other. Different standards. Brown on one course can be as beautiful as green on another.

So, I'm down with the change.  Shot values are of paramount importance. That said, it would be nice to provide raters with some wiggle room to account for course-appropriate conditioning, but that's a difficult proposition.

« Last Edit: March 17, 2008, 05:41:28 PM by Wayne_Freedman »

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,
Maybe another way to look at the Augusta debate is by thinking about this question - What positive influence has Augusta had on the world of golf course architecture and conditioning?  I would ask the same for U.S. Open setups.  Have they done anything good for golf course conditioning and design in general? 
Mark

mark,
I'm not for overwatering.

Augusta has set the standards for everything in tournament golf for years.
Crowd control,concessions,leaderboards, player treatment etc.
players avoid turning pro for months to play there as an amateur.
Why on earth should they be villified for superb conditioning?
Some of the top superintendants interned and assisted at Augusta, so I think most in that industry would disagree that the course has not done anything for the golf world in terms of conditioning.
The mistake comes when clubs try to acheive such all season long on a limited budget with different grasses and weather conditions.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jeff,
You stated about Augusta, "I think most in that industry would disagree that the course has not done anything for the golf world in terms of conditioning."

I agree with that.  Augusta has influenced conditioning, but I was just wondering what the positives were?  What do you think superintendents bring back from Augusta that will help them with their own golf course and is it good for the game? 

Brad Klein

  • Karma: +0/-0
"Revolutionary?"

If that's a revolution, we're in serious trouble. A welcome reform, yes, but not more than that.

And if all of a sudden changes start coming in the top-100 because of one out of ten or so criteria changing and a few marginal voters incorporating this into their votes and Whitten makes a big deal of it in his explanation, that would be very interesting, to say the least.

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
"Revolutionary?"

If that's a revolution, we're in serious trouble. A welcome reform, yes, but not more than that.

And if all of a sudden changes start coming in the top-100 because of one out of ten or so criteria changing and a few marginal voters incorporating this into their votes and Whitten makes a big deal of it in his explanation, that would be very interesting, to say the least.

Brad, Just to be clear, GD does not call the changes, "revolutionary."  GD just says, "We are changing."
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Maybe I will re-label the title as it is a bit misleading.  As Tommy says, the word revolutionary was my own, not GD's.  I just felt something like this was only going to help the cause and be good for the game of golf (whether you like the GD ratings or not)!

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back