Architecture over Conditioning?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Dan has this one right. 90% will go for conditioning over architecture and it might be even more than 90%. This site is a minority opinion as we are all GCA nuts.
Painswick is very close to me, on here we all love it. There are 43 clubs in our county and it is close to the bottom of most lists, a lot of that is to do with the conditioning, its really hard to get a team together to play inter club matches, even worse is the name is even rarely mentioned.
You need to think outside the square on this one, clearly if the architecture is rubbish then now matter how much it is well conditioned its not gonna be a great experience, flipside of the coin a lot just want a nice course with good greens and bad greens = a bad golf experience.

[Jeff_Brauer]

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

Byron,

I won't mention any names but I bet the tree house has several ideas on that, probably isaying that something like one of the Trump owned courses would be the poster child.  Please note I am presuming/sumarizing the written opinions of others here.....I have never played a trump course.  As always, I could be wrong.

[John Moore II]

I suppose a very good question to ask is what really defines good conditioning?? I might say that conditioning is as important to us on here as to the rest of the golf public, we just define it differently. Green does not always mean good conditions, at least not in relation to how the course is meant to be played. I can go both ways with the question. I like to play courses that are well maintained, at times, if maintained properly, the less than good architecture can be enhanced. I also like to play courses with very good architecture. At some point there has to be a balance however, between the architecture and conditioning. Pinehurst #2 or Pine Needles would be no fun to play if the conditions were truly terrible.

[Matt_Ward]

JSPayne:

Good thread.

For me, the conditioning should enhance and even bring out the fine elements of the architecture / design. If it does that then I don't need some place that is manicured like the White House lawn.

However ...

If the overall conditioning hides or diminishes the architecture then clearly the time spent there will be much less so.

For example, one of my basic pet peeves is level tees. If I play a place that is well designed but features tee boxes that are routinely not level then my enjoyment will clearly be compromised.

[Phil Benedict]

I've played Yale a half a dozen times, the first time in the dark ages when the course was in awful condition.  I loved the architecture even under those circumstances but the experience is so much better now that the course is being properly maintained.

[JSPayne]

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

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.

Wow......bold statement. I'm curious if you're referring to one of the actual superintendents either of the Lake or Ocean course, or if you're referring to the head honcho (read: Director of Golf Course Maintenance) Pat Finlen. I've met Pat on several occassions and though we've never had a purely architectural driven conversation, I would find it hard to believe that he has no interest in the architecture and design elements of his courses.

Does this comment stem from playing there often?

[Ken Moum]

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

Byron,

I won't mention any names but I bet the tree house has several ideas on that, probably isaying that something like one of the Trump owned courses would be the poster child.  Please note I am presuming/sumarizing the written opinions of others here.....I have never played a trump course.  As always, I could be wrong.

Jeff,

Having played a lot of golf small and medium-sized town in the upper Midwest, I can assure you that there are some fairly ordinary old courses that get maintained extremely well.

Think of all the country clubs there are scattered around the country. How many of them have notable courses?

Ken

[JESII]

I would rather play the 8,000th best course in the country if it was the best conditioned (by my standards) than the best course in the country if it was in truly average condition...the definition of great condition is the key though...

[George Pazin]

I'd rather walk a well designed, poorly maintained course than play a poorly designed, well maintained one - but that says as much about the current state of my game as anything else.

I play mostly munis, so my bar for conditioning is not very high. I care little about anything, as long as it's not hugely overwatered.

[SL_Solow]

Jeff;  come back to Chicago.  You will find any number of private clubs, and some upscale publics, that have architecture which is pedestrian at best.  However they have large maintenance budgets and are generally in excellent condition with good greens.

On the larger topic, Tom Watson once opined that if a course had to be in excellent condition to be enjoyable, the architecture wasn't very good.

[JESII]

On the larger topic, Tom Watson once opined that if a course had to be in excellent condition to be enjoyable, the architecture wasn't very good.

Interesting comment, and tough to argue with.


On the flip side, I cannot imagine any quality of architecture that would make me want to play a course in total crap condition...

[Joe Hancock]

I think there are many who THINK they prefer architecture, but in actuality they judge courses with more emphasis on conditioning than they are willing to admit......not that any of them reside here in GCA land or on magazine rating panels.....

Joe

[JESII]

Ahh, the wisdom of good looks...

[Sean_A]

As with most things, a combination of factors is the answer.  I very rarely play architecturally poor courses and I choose to play fewer and fewer which means I play less golf these days.  If I am going to make an effort, I want to go somewhere interesting.  For me, there has to be a certain level of conditioning to make going out worth while.  Usually, the culprit is wet/lush conditions - a total waste of time.  I can find interesting stuff on many a course.  The questions are more like how far would I travel and how much would I pay to play these mediocre courses?  Not terribly far no matter how well conditioned they are.  On the other hand, there is a new course a few miles from house which I played once - the front 9.  Some cool holes, but the greens rolled slower than my lawn.  I won't go back.

Ciao

[John Sheehan]

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.