Just curious, how many courses poor in architecture have outstanding conditioning?
Byron,
In all seriousness: Is this meant to be a serious question? In my own experience, I'd say that 90% of the well-maintained courses I play are "poor in architecture" --- a percentage that most likely represents the courses is general that are of poor architectural quality. The sad fact is, the more I have learned about architecture, the less I see that is of interest to me. I don't think I'm alone here.
As to the main question posed by JSPayne:
Great question and some interesting responses.
Appropriate conditioning to me is that which accentuates and supports the architectural features. While good architecture holds my interest much, much more than good conditioning, if the conditions of an architecturally interesting course are lacking, the experience is deflating.
But, I remember playing some great courses that were in poor condition and, though disappointed, I still enjoyed the round. Like a well written play that is poorly produced, the experience was disappointing because I knew it could have been so much better. Ultimately, I side with Architecture over Conditioning, with some caveats.
In my neck of the woods there is a high-end CCFAD that has the architectural character of a small bar of soap, but is superbly maintained. Most golfers I meet love this course. When I ask them what they like, the first response is almost always a reference to the conditioning. If my livelihood depended upon golf course revenues, I'd make sure the conditioning was my number 2 priority, right behind customer service.
My own home course is of mediocre architectural merit. When it is in good shape it is fun to play. During last two years the greens have slowly deteriorated, a combination of infestation of some invasive weed (some have referred to it as pineapple grass, I don't know), early-budding poa annua and a thatching problem. The new super is doing his best to remedy the situation he inherited. The course now plays hard and fast. So it's got that going for it. Which is a good.
But the greens are wretched. They are like bumpy sponges with the suface characteristics of a head of broccoli. When a ball strikes the fairway or rough it makes a loud "thump." When it hits a green if makes a muffled "splat." It truly is painful.
I have to admit, as much as I love GCA, I'd play a dog track if it had good greens. When it comes to conditioning that is my bias: just give me a good putting surface and I may not be ecstatic, but I will enjoy myself. Give me an abysmally maintained architectural gem and I will likely need the help of anti-depressants. It's the expectations.