Architecture v Conditioning

[Wade Whitehead]

One of the most fascinating aspects of this board, for me, is trying to discern what separates treehouse folk from the other 99% of people who play/consume golf.

My "home" course (a misnomer of sorts, since I tend to play only 25% of my round there) is, by most accounts, a solid layout, with several very good holes.  It presents a particular challenge from the championship tee and uses a wide variety of hole shape and size.

It also happens to be the worst-kept golf course in the area.  Bunkers are rarely raked, greens are slow and bumpy, fairways are far from perfect, and rough can contain a wide mix of grasses, often unmowed.  Tees can be flat out bare.

I choose, voluntarily, to play it instead of equally nearby courses that present "nicer" playing conditions but far less interesting design.  For whatever reason, I enjoy playing the ball down without the guarantee of a perfect lie.  And I don't mind the challenge of playing on less than perfect putting surfaces, even if it means a good putt bounces offline.

Part of this is nostalgia for how I think (for whatever reason) the game is supposed to be played, which many would call misguided.

The best case scenario is a well-kept and well-designed course.  Given one or the other, could it be said that most on this site would pick a good design any day?

WW

[Wade Whitehead]

By the way, I'm sure a thread like this has been started before.  I've just not read it.

Thanks.

WW

[Jaeger Kovich]

I think the thing that would bother me the most, the deciding factor of my arch v conditioning  is the "bumpy greens". If I am missing straight putts because the ball is bouncing then I'm not going to have fun, and wouldn't want to play there... My home course, an arch gem, has horribly inconsistent bunkers, but the greens run perfectly true so at least it is possible to make the up/down! Irregular lies dont bother me, they are what makes the game interesting, and every shot different, but give me a chance to save my par on the greens!

[Chris Cupit]

For me it depends.  I'd like to think I'd choose architecture over conditioning. 

I'll admit to being very spoiled re: conditioning and I only play 10-15 rounds a year now so I can be even "pickier".  But, I really don't get too hung up on:

Tees--I'm teeing it up and grew up on "humped tees" so if it is remotely flat that's fine and 100% dirt is fine as long as I can put a tee in the ground.

Bunkers--I actually played with the idea of not providing rakes at my course and think it's great when bunkers are "foot raked" and truly hazardous.

Fairways--thin is no problem--better than uncut and fluffy for sure.

Greens--OK, here I'll admit to being a bit snobby.  Pace really doesn't bother me at all.  A decent smooth roll is nice though and I'd prefer smooth and slow to bumpy/crusty anytime.

[Adam Clayman]

WW, I doubt a thread exactly like this has been started. But, I think you'd be surprised on how many of the posters here get too much credit for being purists. A purist in golf is a a sportsman, someone who can appreciate the challenges that need to be over come. Conditions being at the heart of those challenges.
Those who want level everything, no wind and no variety in their tests might be in the majority, but that doesn't mean they should be listened to on matters related to the courses architecture or conditioning.

Good on ya mate. Keep bucking the non thinkers.

[John Moore II]

I would have to have reasonably smooth greens. Other than that, I'd take a good design over a pristine course most any day. Though price would have to factor in quite a bit as well.