Architecture over Conditioning?

[JSPayne]

I think even on this board, this decision may be one that splits the masses, but I'm curious as to what the general consensus is of members of this board.

I've played quite a few courses (just under 100....definetely not as many as some, but substantial) of wildly varying character, good architecture and bad, good conditioning and bad, public, muni, resort, low and high end private.

I've played with people, including some on this board, that live and die GCA and would play a course and love it based solely on its architecture, history or both. I've played with a multitude of golfers who drool over superb conditioning, more or less regardless of the architecture.

As much as I enjoy discussing and seeking out different architectural recommendations, I must admit that I do seem to fall more in the camp of enjoying a well-conditioned poor-architecture course a bit more than a poor-conditioned good-architecture course.

I think it's the player and the superintendent in me that just wants more than anything to enjoy my round and not have any excuses at the end of it about the course causing some well played shots to go awry due to poor conditions. Likewise, as a superintendent, I hate to see good architecture go to waste by poor conditioning that doesn't let the architecture live up to it's full potential. Conditioning is subjective, and I understand more than most how certain types of grasses and climates and green speeds in relation to slopes must be maintained differently, but by the same token I feel like I can also pick out unexcusable poor conditions as well.

On what side do all of you normally err.....conditioning over architecture, or vice versa?

[Adam Clayman]

JSP, This is a wonderful discussion topic that should reveal character.
 For me, Great architecture can be played everyday, while great conditioning on "less than" architecture will cease to offer the challenge and inspiration found on the former.

I'm certain most of those who have fallen into the abyss of commercialized mediocrity, on great conditioning, are in a state of denial on some level. The biggest being the sportsman inherent deep in our primordial brains.

It doesn't require a zillion experiences to realize this, just a few key one's.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JSP,

Natch I go for the architecture!  Yesterday on site at a remodel, the super informed me that the pump was down and certain areas hadn't been watered in five days.  I hadn't noticed the wilting, as I toured the course in a cart, and in fact, when I went back to look at his "worst area" I found it to be totally acceptable for play.  Flying back to DFW, I noticed from the air how brown the roughs are now, after one of the hottest months on record here and it looked fine - just like the Chicago area cousres I played as a kid where I expected roughs to be a bit brown and hard.

I don't want to hijack your thread, but your comment that you have played 100 courses threw me!  I have played about 70 of the top 100 and probably another 200 overall, but I never really counted.  It got me to wondering who has played the most top 200 courses as a percentage of total courses played among us?  Frankly, I hardly play anymore unless its a course of architectural interest.

[PThomas]

DEFINITELY architecture over conditioning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

architecture over conditioning for me... however, architecture becomes meaningless with unputtable greens.  the greens must be decent to enjoy good architecture in my opinion.

[Brent Hutto]

It depends on what kind of conditioning. A course that's firm and well drained, both in the fairways and on the putting surfaces, is more fun to play than one that's wet and/or soft. Always. Mediocre architecture and a playing surface like Royal Birkdale's last week would be more fun than the architecturally-greatest course in the world with balls plugging in the fairway and low shots stopping on the fringes instead of bouncing.

But you get get firm and well-drained turf I'd say design starts to win out over most other aspects of conditioning. The occasional bunker with not enough sand or fairways with some spotty or cuppy lies here and there don't do much to spoil enjoying a round on a great course. Even slow, grainy or inconsistent greens (to a point) aren't a big deal although once you get below a 6-7 or so on the Stimpmeter my putting strokes doesn't really work well (you need more pop or hit on really shaggy greens).

In other words, any course where you have to take into account the behavior of the ball once it's on the ground is more interesting than a course where it stops dead on every shot. And nobody like hitting shots off soggy turf.

[John Burzynski]

Architecture over conditioning.

We have Augusta and TV to thank for the expectations of year round lush courses with scissor/hand-manicured fairways and evenly stimpped greens at a 12.  Hard to find a bad fairway lie on some of those courses, unless you land in a divot.

I will go for a course with fine architecture and challenges for all levels that is a bit less well conditioned.  Even fairway lies should vary; I can remember when fairway grass was generally longer on courses than it is today, and even the greens seemed slower when I was young.   

I hear complaints around here about the courses all of the time, brown spots and patches, etc., when we haven't had any rain to speak of here for 3-4 weeks.  What do golfers expect, miracles in the face of Mother Nature? 

It is (and should be) about the walk and the enjoyment of playing and competition, not about cutting blades of grass t within 1/16" and having a perfect shade of green.

[Tom Yost]

I submit for discussion, the poster child for the Architecture vs. Conditioning debate:

Apache Stronghold

[Kalen Braley]

architecture over conditioning for me... however, architecture becomes meaningless with unputtable greens.  the greens must be decent to enjoy good architecture in my opinion.

I'll 2nd Jays thoughts....Architecture over conditioning as long as the greens are in halfway decent shape.

[Dan Herrmann]

I'll bet 90% of golfers would choose conditioning.

We self-confessed architecture snobs would probably be at about 15%.

[Craig Van Egmond]

Tom,

    You are so right!  Apache Stronghold immediately came to my mind when I saw this thread. I've played AS 5 times and each time it got a little worse conditioning wise, but it was still worth the drive. There are times when I think it should be put out of its misery though.  

    However, most of the people I play golf with would be horrified by the conditioning and that would overshadow any architectural merit.

[Ken Moum]

I'll bet 90% of golfers would choose conditioning.

We self-confessed architecture snobs would probably be at about 15%.

Close to 90 percent of the golfers I know think conditioning is the measure of greatness in a course. Heck, a lot of them might not be able to tell the difference between conditioning and architecture.

There are a couple of courses around here that I never liked. And now that I have some small understanding of GCA, I realize that their routing is the real problem.

When I tell my friends I don't like one popular local course because the routing is horrible, despite it being on a beautiful piece of property, and despite its fluffy zoysiagrass fairways, and despite its gorgeous lake views, they look at me like I am speaking ancient Norse.

Most of them don't even know what a course routing is.

K

[Don_Mahaffey]

For me, it’s not an enjoyable golf experience unless you have a minimum level of BOTH conditioning and architecture.

About 5 years ago I played High Point. The greens were long and shaggy, over fertilized, over irrigated, had tons of grass and maybe rolled 5-6 on the stimp.  The fwys were lush, long, slow and wet. Even though I love the course, it was not fun at all as the conditioning muted the architecture. Now, had it been a hardscrabble muni struggling to grow grass it would have been fun as at least the ball would be moving on the ground.
On the flip side, I’ve played Apache Stronghold many times in conditions that most would say come no where near what you might find in other parts of AZ. But, at least you could have fun as the greens were OK and even though the rest of the golf course was patchy, it was still fun as the conditioning didn’t mute the architecture.

When the conditioning takes away the architecture it is no fun for me. What good is a redan if the ball can’t move on the green?

[Dan Herrmann]

Let me tell you - playing my home course (which I think is architecturally very, very good) with excellent conditioning (as we've had this year with our new super) is a helluva lot more fun than when it was poorly maintained.

[Ron Farris]

No doubt in my mind that Conditioning is more favored by the masses.  For me, I will go out of my way to play an architectually worthy golf course.  A. Stronghold is an example.  On my trip to Arizona my playing partners would not have enjoyed the course.  Most golfers do not know about architecture and I have found that most golfers don't care about architecture, especially if the course is well maintained. 

[John_Conley]

Let me tell you - playing my home course (which I think is architecturally very, very good) with excellent conditioning (as we've had this year with our new super) is a helluva lot more fun than when it was poorly maintained.

I don't think you will find anyone argue otherwise.

[Jason Topp]

Generally I would say architecture.

Apache Stronghold is a great test of this thesis and I would rather return there than most of the Scottsdale area courses.

Recently, however, I played two courses that were designed to play firm that were overwatered.  Such conditioning can nullify the architecture:

Stoneridge - I really like the course but was dismayed last week to find that the course was very wet and the fairways were filled with ample divots that had been replaced but were decent swatches of sod.  The greens were soupy.  I have played it many times in the past with a very light green/brown color to the course. 

Big Fish - has in the past played like it consists of concrete.  A week and a half ago its greens and some fairways were quite soupy, divots stuck together and the soil was a dark brown.  The softness is especially a problem on the front nine, which depends on angles and ground game for interest.

The softness of the courses could have been weather related (especially at Big Fish) but this non turf expert doubts it. 

I almost would rather play a well conditioned average course than a very good to great course that is being maintained to be green.


 

[Tom Huckaby]

JSP - did you really expect ANYONE in this forum to say conditioning?

I will say this:  the game must be playable for architecture to matter.  So on the extremes, even the best architecture can't save horrid conditions.  But of course on the other extreme even the best conditions can't save horrid architecture.

Inside the extremes, Jason Topp makes very good points about overwatering.

TH

[Jerry Kluger]

My experience has been that most courses do not differentiate between green conditioning and fairway/rough conditioning.  I dare say that most of us would find it very frustrating to play a course with what we feel to be interesting green contours, where the greens are running very slow, thereby taking the challenge out of those contours.  So when we say that architecture is more important than conditioning, we have to do so with certain reservations.

It is my belief most courses view green speeds as synonymous with quallity, but what happens is that the watering necessary to maintain those speeds translates into extensive watering of the rest of the course as well.  The fairways become soft and lush, and the rough becomes so thick that there is little chance of recovery shots, and sometimes, prevents a ball from reaching a  strategic bunker.  (Thick and tall rough also is believed by some to be a characteristic of quality.)

The best example of this I have found was during my recent trip to Turning Stone resort in New York.  They have 3 courses and the one which they use for the PGA Tour is very well conditioned, in fact, almost too much so, (Fancy mowing patterns, etc.) but it is clearly not the most interesting architecturally.  To me, the RTJ course, Kaluhyat, was the most interesting and challenging, but the greens were incredibly slow and really detracted from the experience. 

There really is no simple answer to the question other than poor conditioning can trump great architecture, just as poor architecture can trump great conditioning.

[Adam Clayman]

 Fortunate to experience both a great course, melded perfectly with it's architecture, and, a very mediocre design with wonderful, albeit often soft conditions, weekly. I can opine that the biggest difference is the feeling of having to think through the shots. This is at the heart of distinguishing between merely good gca and great. Conditions can change easier than the architecture.

[BVince]

Just curious, how many courses poor in architecture have outstanding conditioning?

[David Stamm]

No question. Arch over conditioning. Condtioning is alot easier (and cheaper) to improve. A poor design with great conditioning reminds me of an old saying, "Lipstick on a pig."

[Kalen Braley]

Not to go all Bill Clinton here, but I think poor must be defined because as Jerry and others have said if poor means awful to you then it can easily trump the architecture in unputtable greens and swampy fairways.

However if poor means "I've seen better, but its not horrid" then certainly I'd take the architecture over the conditioning.

[JSPayne]

There are quite a few good comments that hit the nail right on the head. And I really didn't expect the results to be that much different. However, I think in pondering over it some of you have found out what I'm getting at.

Conditioning is often in the eye of the beholder. Royal Birkdale, to many naiive American golfers, may look like a dry, near-dirt cow pasture (how many times have you been asked by other golfers when watching a British Open....why can't they keep it green?), however we, more knowledgable patrons, know that the conditioning was excellent for the architecture of the course. However, I do believe there are many prevalent conditioning problems that plague several, if not many, great architectural masterpieces:

1) Wrong greens speed: I say wrong, because they could be too slow, and make contours meaningless, or too fast, making some key pin positions unpinnable or impossible.

2) Overall wet/soggy conditions: Especially on more linksy courses, but even parkland or mountain, overly wet courses from mismanagement of water, poor drainage to recover from heavy rains or...gasp....overseeding, can ruin shot designs and the way drives roll out and how approach shots are received.

3) Green/approach firmness: Courses that are designed for the ground game should have firm approaches. Courses designed to be attacked more aerially (as much as this GCA forum dislikes that) shouldn't have concrete greens that can't receive anything other than a wedge.

4) Overgrowth: Roughs too long and thick, low hanging tree branches, shaggy fairways, overly gnarly bunker edges you lose a ball in, rough between fairway grass and fairway bunkers that stops a drive from rolling into them.....neglect or simple ignorance from a maintenance perspective of how a course was designed to play out can detract from the best design intentions.

All I'm saying with all of this is that I have played some courses with great architecture that unfortunately had some of the above problems....and while I loved the architecture, I became disappointed that I couldn't play certain shots or that they didn't react as they were obviously intended to.

And as I said in the orginal post, I still stand by the fact that, to be my home course or for me to return again and again, I'd take a better conditioned (read: NOT necessarily green.....conditioning that befits the design and maximizes playability) course with less than great architecture anyday.

I do agree, however, that immaculate conditioning can never improve an incrediably poor design. At that point, they just become a tourist attraction and not a round of golf. (I'm sure we can all think of a couple of these.)

[Joel_Stewart]

JSP - did you really expect ANYONE in this forum to say conditioning?

It's true, you are preaching to the choir.  Ask this question on a superintendents forum and you may get another answer which in all fairness, members in the US want to see green and it's their job at stake.

At the Olympic Club, the super has no interest in architecture and just wants the course to be firm and fast and green at the same time.  He'll give up the firm and fast if he had too.