[Wade Whitehead]

This question may have been posed before.  If so, I apologize in advance.

Would you rather play [regularly] a good design that generally in below average shape or a less interesting layout that always well conditioned?

WW

[Patrick Glynn]

WW,

I think the "treehouse" answer will be that design trumps conditoning, every time. I would look at my own experiences and say that I would prefer TOC in winter conditions off mats than say The K Club or any other similar course.

Thats the easy answer, but then I look at Royal Porturush and Royal County Down. There is no doubt in my mind that RCD is a far superior course to Portrush. I preferred the tee shots, the routing and the overall challenge at RCD far more. That said, I have to acknowledge that RCD is without doubt the best conditioned course I have ever played. The firmness of the ground, the trueness of the greens, the attention to detail on the bunkering, even the fairway widths were perfect (to my mind) On the flip side, I thought Portrush's greens were spotty, the fairways so narrow as to miss their initial design intent, & just the overall turf conditions to be softer/worse. So maybe conditioning plays a bigger part than I thought...

I did find it interesting that on another thread it was suggested the Royal Melbourne could not be part of the World Top 10 simply because of poor turf conditioning (brought on by drought/lack of water)

[Wade Whitehead]

Patrick:

I noticed the same comment about Royal Melbourne right after I posted this thread.

I think the vast majority of everyday players seek conditioning over design.  I'd guess our fellow GCAers might buck that trend, however.

WW

[Andy Troeger]

WW,
This thread has been posed before, but most of the others have been too, so I don't see anything wrong with bringing it back up. It gives some new folks a chance to put their two cents in.

I think your guess is very accurate. Most golfers prefer conditioning, almost all on this website will say design. I'd take design, but you need a minimum level of conditioning to bring out the design. That threshold is fairly low to me, but it still exists.

[Wade Whitehead]

WW,
This thread has been posed before, but most of the others have been too, so I don't see anything wrong with bringing it back up. It gives some new folks a chance to put their two cents in.

I think your guess is very accurate. Most golfers prefer conditioning, almost all on this website will say design. I'd take design, but you need a minimum level of conditioning to bring out the design. That threshold is fairly low to me, but it still exists.

Apologies for reposting, and thanks for the response.

Your points are well taken, and I agree.  I'd be interested in hear more details about what minimal conditioning expectations you have.  Poor teeboxes, for example, make very little difference for me.  Unraked bunkers don't bother me, either.  And I even appreciate a course that provides a variety of lies in the fairway.  Truth be told, I've played some very enjoyable rounds on courses in terrible shape (with partners who grumbled the entire time, incidentally).  I guess unputtable greens would be one of my only dealbreakers.

How about you guys?

WW

[Andy Troeger]

WW,

I was thinking unputtable greens as the main issue. If a course has totally lost the fairways or tees or bunkers are totally washed out those could be other things, but all pretty extreme cases. Anything that would have a MAJOR effect on the way the course plays.

[Chris Kane]

The thing about conditioning is that you can't judge it based on one or two rounds.  

I recall an American contributor to this website traveled to Australia a couple of years ago, and marked down Peninsula on the basis of poor conditioning (he saw it once in December or January).  I have played Peninsula perhaps a dozen times in the last five years - it has always been in sensational condition.  In that situation, to consider conditioning as a one-time visitor was intellectually dishonest.  

I have played Royal Melbourne a couple of times this year - yes the condition is not what it should be - but no, I wouldn't knock it out of the top ten just yet.  If it hasn't improved in five years time, there might be a legitimate argument to say that its conditioning is consistently poor enough to justify being marked down.

[Matt_Ward]

wwhitehead:

Conditioning is a secondary item to me. For average non-affiliated players the reverse may be the order of the day.

The design elements are a core ingredient -- however, I won't be venturing back to a facility if the secondary item of conditioning cannot be at least at a level that allows all the design elements to shine forth.

Please don't thing I am expecting some verdant carpet. Quite the contrary, but I do expect some basic elements (e.g. level teeing areas, greens that roll and don't require a full shoulder turn on a six-foot putt, to name just two concerns).

[Kyle Harris]

Good architecture saves bad conditioning. The reverse is not true.

[Sean_A]

Design is far more important than conditioning, but the two are still related.  Additionally, if a course is in a climate where golf is played year round and that course can't be played all year or it design elements are seriously compromised by the conditions, then there isn't much point in trying to separate the two elements.  That said, there are only a handful of courses I have seen in which the design was all but nullified by the conditions.

Ciao

[Wade Whitehead]

All of this begs the questions:

1. What courses are fantastic designs but are in terrible shape, at least when you played them?
2. What courses are in immaculate condition but completely lack any architectural merit whatsoever?

I'm sure these two cans of worms have been opened before.  I understand digression.

WW

[Kalen Braley]

All of this begs the questions:

1. What courses are fantastic designs but are in terrible shape, at least when you played them?
2. What courses are in immaculate condition but completely lack any architectural merit whatsoever?

I'm sure these two cans of worms have been opened before.  I understand digression.

WW

Apache Stronghold in Arizona has long been the whipping boy for #1 on GCA.com

[John Moore II]

I will say the same thing I have said to this thread in the past.
1. People on this site will play a very good design over and over long before they will play the good conditioned not so well designed course.
2. The general public would rather play the course with pimped-out conditions before a good design because they generally don't understand what makes good architecture.

[Matt Varney]

Most of the guys on GCA would prefer to play courses that are firm and fast and have great classic design elements.  The problem is that 95% of golfers worldwide like courses that are wide open, lush conditions with flat greens.  This allows them to spray the ball all over off the tee and still have a decent recovery shot at the green so that they can have a chance at birdie and an even better chance at making pars.  This is why you have so many players that tell you they shoot mid-80's and can not break 100 on a well designed golf course that requires the player to hit shots and think as they play the course.

Me personally, I value great design and the grass can be average condition as long as the course is fun and interesting to play while creating a series of challenging shots throughout the round.  Nice greens with contours are required along with some strategic bunkering to be a good course the rest of the course including tees and fairways can be so-so conditioning so you have a variety of lies during play.

 

[Ken Moum]

Since "good design" and "below average condition" are pretty much up to personal definition, given the choice.

FWIW, my wife and I, and another couple played Nairn, Brora almost back-to-back (Dornoch was in between) in 2006.

My wife and I found Nairn less than amazing, despite have the best turf conditions we saw in 12 rounds.

We both loved Brora, and would happily play it over and over.

The other couple are "American" golfers, and revel in their Americaness.  In fact they have made multiple statements to that effect--particularly as regards course conditioning. She is also quick to point out how "immaculate" the conditioning is on a course, and always prattles on about the flowerbeds.

Both of them thought Nairn was the best course the played in Scotland, and Brora ws not only the worst, but an awful place to play.

Nairn was, I am certain, the only course we played that my friend would be willing to play multiple times.

Now, if Brora were in really rotten condition, with lots of bare ground in the fairways and crummy greens, I might feel differently.

Ken

[Jason Connor]

It's tricky because a great course has to have great / interesting greens.

And if the course is in terrible shape, the character of its greens is difficult to see and it becomes mundane.

Fortunately, I suppose, this is a choice we rarely have to make.

[Rich Goodale]

I think anybody who says that conditioning is not important is being disingenuous.  I would argue that the greater the course the more important the conditioning, due to the fact that the features which define "greatness" (e.g. green contours, hazard nature and placement, strategic options offered, etc.) only really shine when the course is maintained optimally.  I think it was Tom Paul who first compared a properly maintained golf course to a finely tuned engine, and he was right.  Playing a great course in medicore condition is like driving a Ferrari that sorely needs it's 15,000 mile service check.  It's still a Ferrari, but you know that you are missing something that could be truly memorable.

Of the "great" courses I've played, 5-10 were not anywhere near their best when I first played them.  Of the half of those I've been fortunate enough to later play when they were finely tuned and ready to roar, the difference between the two states is almost incalculable relative to the quality of the experience.  Yes, it is possible for anybody with a modicum of love for architecture and experience to hypothesize how a course "should" play when seeing it under sub-optimum conditions, but any such hypothesis is as valid as those apocryphal Platonic phoilosphers who interpret the world outside of their cave by analyzing the shadows of that world cast by the light of their internal fire.  In my opinion, of course.

Given that most of us play most of the great courses we are lucky enough to get access to very infrequently, maybe even only once, such golfus interruptus is a sad but inevitable part of our life.  However, just as bad sex is better than no sex, playing an architectural gem even when it is soft and soggy rather than fast and firm is better than not having played it at all.

[Sean_A]

I think anybody who says that conditioning is not important is being disingenuous.  I would argue that the greater the course the more important the conditioning, due to the fact that the features which define "greatness" (e.g. green contours, hazard nature and placement, strategic options offered, etc.) only really shine when the course is maintained optimally.  I think it was Tom Paul who first compared a properly maintained golf course to a finely tuned engine, and he was right.  Playing a great course in medicore condition is like driving a Ferrari that sorely needs it's 15,000 mile service check.  It's still a Ferrari, but you know that you are missing something that could be truly memorable.

Of the "great" courses I've played, 5-10 were not anywhere near their best when I first played them.  Of the half of those I've been fortunate enough to later play when they were finely tuned and ready to roar, the difference between the two states is almost incalculable relative to the quality of the experience.  Yes, it is possible for anybody with a modicum of love for architecture and experience to hypothesize how a course "should" play when seeing it under sub-optimum conditions, but any such hypothesis is as valid as those apocryphal Platonic phoilosphers who interpret the world outside of their cave by analyzing the shadows of that world cast by the light of their internal fire.  In my opinion, of course.

Given that most of us play most of the great courses we are lucky enough to get access to very infrequently, maybe even only once, such golfus interruptus is a sad but inevitable part of our life.  However, just as bad sex is better than no sex, playing an architectural gem even when it is soft and soggy rather than fast and firm is better than not having played it at all.

Rich
Rich, your analogy isn't quite right because cars can be kept in top nick regardless of weather so long as the money is there.  Courses have natural restrictions on their conditions which are futile to ignore and I would argue that courses are better for being presented in different states because different questions are asked of the player - assuming you see the course week in and week out - so this doesn't really apply for the casual visitor.

I do agree with you, but conditions can be judged on a scale.  Given this, I think it is fair that how we think of a course is how it is presented on a normal day given the weather.  There isn't much point in going on about what the course is like in top form if that is the case only a few days a year - and so on down the scale of conditioning.  Another way to look at is the better the course the the more it is able to shine despite not being in great nick.

Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

"Of the "great" courses I've played, 5-10 were not anywhere near their best when I first played them.  Of the half of those I've been fortunate enough to later play when they were finely tuned and ready to roar, the difference between the two states is almost incalculable relative to the quality of the experience...."

Rich - re the half that you haven't had a chance to play again, does the lack of ideal conditioning (then) affect your judgement of their greatness (now)?

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

All anaolgies are flawed.  That's why they are called "analogies" ratehr than "truth."

Peter

Of course.  I try to mentally extrapolate "what if" scenarios, but it's too hard and I don't care enough to take the thought experiment much past a cheeky glass of Gigondas.  I can say that of the great course I have played, the greatest were great the first time I played them, and those of them I have played more often than once only get better the more I play them.

Rich

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich -

thanks. Your first line was interesting; your second particularly pithy. And your answer was a surprise to me, even though I read (and think I understand) most of your posts, i.e. that that the extrapolation of "what if" scenarios really is that difficult, even in regards to the great courses and even for an experienced golfer and architecture buff.

Which tells me I shouldn't really be posting my thoughts on courses I've only played once, even if I ever happen to play one of the greats. (Yup, always the last to know...)

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Au contraire, Peter

If I (or just about everybody on this DG) only posted on the courses we had played multiple times, the content would be even shallower than it already is.

rich

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

For some reason I can't seem to forget that apparently the one time you played NGLA it was not in good playable condition perhaps because it was in a scheduled maintence cycle. I think that is such a shame. To see and play that golf course as it seems to usually be these days (firm and fast and true) is a certain joy, and I think for most anyone. You should try to go again and this time I'll call to check the maintenance schedule for you.

[Mike Tanner]

WW,
For me, it's the course with interesting design qualities, especially on a regular basis and even more so if it's an opportunity to play a course I might see only once. I also agree with Andy T. about minimum conditioning standards. I can endure less than average fairways and tees, but bad greens just won't do.
Mike

[Rich Goodale]

Richard the Magnificent:

For some reason I can't seem to forget that apparently the one time you played NGLA it was not in good playable condition perhaps because it was in a scheduled maintence cycle. I think that is such a shame. To see and play that golf course as it seems to usually be these days (firm and fast and true) is a certain joy, and I think for most anyone. You should try to go again and this time I'll call to check the maintenance schedule for you.

Tom

I'd love to play NGLA again, regardless of what condition it is in, but would be particularly pleased to play or see it when it is at its best.  Do you need a caddy for the Singles next year?

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()