Conditioning

[Mark Pritchett]

I thought it was interesting to compare Darius Oliver's (hardly a proponent of over-watered, soft courses) list of best conditioned courses in the US.  Below are the 24 courses he lists in Planet Golf USA as having the "Best Conditioning".  The second list is the first 24 courses from the new Golf Digest ranking with the highest conditioning scores.

Interesting, agree, disagree?

Planet Golf USA

Oakmont
Quarry at La Quinta
Augusta National
Sand Hills
Sebonack
Shadow Creek
Bandon Trails
Kinloch
Old Sandwich
Pacific Dunes
The Preserve
The Concession
Honors
Hawks Ridge
Kapalua (Plantation)
Eastward Ho!
Bandon Dunes
Peachtree
Myopia Hunt
Merion (East)
Double Eagle
Muirfield Village
Boston GC
Galloway National



Golf Digest


Augusta National   8.9802
Oakmont C.C.   8.7108
Pine Valley   8.5744
Shinnecock Hills   8.4817
The Quarry at La Quinta   8.4132
Muirfield Village   8.4065
The Alotian Club   8.4007
Double Eagle   8.3996
Canyata   8.3761
Chicago Golf   8.2992
Baltusrol (Lower)   8.2934
Oakland Hills (South)   8.2931
Sand Hills   8.2820
Cypress Point   8.2409
Kinloch   8.2229
Crystal Downs   8.2004
Merion (East)   8.1989
Seminole   8.1938
Eagle Point   8.1748
Diamond Creek Golf Club   8.1725
Oak Hill (East)   8.1721
Southern Hills   8.1526
Castle Pines   8.1459
Baltusrol (Upper)   8.1314

[Mark Pritchett]

Agree on the Bridge, excellent conditions.  I know everyone is ready to "get done with brown" but green courses can have ideal fast and firm conditioning as well. 

[Mac Plumart]

I'm actually glad to see The Concession on that list.

I've only played it once, but the time I played it the fairways were not only beautiful to the eye...they were also a real joy to play golf on.; very firm, great roll out, bump and runs were a great option to approach some greens with...and the greens were had the perfect mix of slope and speed.

[Tom_Doak]

I just do not think this should be a category.

It would be pointless for me to try and go through the courses I've seen and rate the conditioning and pick favorites.  For example, The Renaissance Club has to be one of the best conditioned courses in the UK.  But, so what?  Does that make anyone want to go play it over its neighbors?   

To me, the only question is whether the conditioning is sufficient to enjoy the golf course -- a yes or no question.  If they insist on rating conditioning, maybe they could rate it "yes" = 1 and "no" = 0, and mutliply the overall rating times the conditioning number.

In that light, there are days when certain courses perceived as among the best conditioned in the country are actually "no" votes, because the greens are just too fast for everything that's going on.  But there wouldn't be many good courses which aren't maintained sufficiently to be considered for a ranking.  Apache Stronghold is sadly one of the few I can think of.

[Mark Chaplin]

I've never played a course as well conditioned as Old Elm, it was rare to have anything within a yard in front of the ball to pick a line on.

Honourable mentions to Chicago, Metropolitan (Oz) and Royal St George's.

Tom - with Rennaisance being private the conditioning affects members and their guests but the golfing public even if they wanted to couldn't play there.

[Mark Pritchett]

I agree Tom.  However, I think conditioning is a big deal to a lot of people. 

[Ben Sims]

To sort of jump on Tom's bandwagon, is this the height of a course's conditioning? The yearly average?  Late September is a wonderful golfing time nearly everywhere in the CONUS.  I wonder what ANGC looks like in late September?

I think it's preposterous to rate conditioning in this way.

[John Kavanaugh]

I just do not think this should be a category.

It would be pointless for me to try and go through the courses I've seen and rate the conditioning and pick favorites.  For example, The Renaissance Club has to be one of the best conditioned courses in the UK.  But, so what?  Does that make anyone want to go play it over its neighbors?   

To me, the only question is whether the conditioning is sufficient to enjoy the golf course -- a yes or no question.  If they insist on rating conditioning, maybe they could rate it "yes" = 1 and "no" = 0, and mutliply the overall rating times the conditioning number.

In that light, there are days when certain courses perceived as among the best conditioned in the country are actually "no" votes, because the greens are just too fast for everything that's going on.  But there wouldn't be many good courses which aren't maintained sufficiently to be considered for a ranking.  Apache Stronghold is sadly one of the few I can think of.

Tom,

I am one of those golfers who choose where to play based on the conditioning of the course. It is absolutely as important as any other criteria.

[Jeb Bearer]

Ben,

I'm not entirely sure how the whole thing works, but I assume that Golf Digest raters play courses at various times in a year, and thus the overall rating represents the average of the various conditions that the course sees? That being said, I agree that it's a kind of weird category. For one thing, it's the one category that is independent of the architecture; a perfectly designed course can be in poor condition and vice versa.

[jeffwarne]

I just do not think this should be a category.

It would be pointless for me to try and go through the courses I've seen and rate the conditioning and pick favorites.  For example, The Renaissance Club has to be one of the best conditioned courses in the UK.  But, so what?  Does that make anyone want to go play it over its neighbors?    

To me, the only question is whether the conditioning is sufficient to enjoy the golf course -- a yes or no question.  If they insist on rating conditioning, maybe they could rate it "yes" = 1 and "no" = 0, and mutliply the overall rating times the conditioning number.

In that light, there are days when certain courses perceived as among the best conditioned in the country are actually "no" votes, because the greens are just too fast for everything that's going on.  But there wouldn't be many good courses which aren't maintained sufficiently to be considered for a ranking.  Apache Stronghold is sadly one of the few I can think of.

I couldn't agree more.
But then I wouldn't have ANY categories.
I guess when you have a thousand+ raters you have to tell them what good is, but if you have a select few, why not trust their evaluation skills?

and Ben is spot on,
Every course looks different in different months.
I remember raters complaining to me about Long Cove in January-I asked them how Pine Valley was looking in January.
No rater gets near our course in peak season unless he's there unannounced with a member.
 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

I am one of those golfers who choose where to play based on the conditioning of the course. It is absolutely as important as any other criteria.

John:  I am dying to hear which courses you've knocked back because their conditioning was not up to snuff.  You can send me a list privately if you prefer.

One great course that gets a bad rap for conditioning is Riviera, because a lot of "experts" don't like the kikuyu, but I remember that you were one of its biggest fans ... so I am not buying what you are saying.

Plus, if you didn't notice, your home club was rated something like 90th for conditioning in the GOLF DIGEST list.  Or does that just mean they're all good?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom - with Rennaisance being private the conditioning affects members and their guests but the golfing public even if they wanted to couldn't play there.

Mark - the golfing public can't play ANY of the top 25 courses on the GOLF DIGEST list, either.  Certainly, that has something to do with their conditioning ratings, too.  Certainly it's easier at The Renaissance Club considering they have a bigger budget than Gullane and a lot less play, but that is also true for Augusta, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Shadow Creek and all the rest.  I'm just saying I don't think any of them should get any brownie points for that.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

I am one of those golfers who choose where to play based on the conditioning of the course. It is absolutely as important as any other criteria.

John:  I am dying to hear which courses you've knocked back because their conditioning was not up to snuff.  You can send me a list privately if you prefer.

One great course that gets a bad rap for conditioning is Riviera, because a lot of "experts" don't like the kikuyu, but I remember that you were one of its biggest fans ... so I am not buying what you are saying.

Plus, if you didn't notice, your home club was rated something like 90th for conditioning in the GOLF DIGEST list.  Or does that just mean they're all good?

I am a member of my home club because it is eight minutes from my home.  I believe Golf Digest has a good handle on it's conditioning considering the ups and downs the club as seen in the last ten years. The new super does an excellent job working with the new ownership.

I do love the conditioning of Riviera and kikuyu. You may not know that in my youth it was a treat to get to play zoysia. I also never play temporary greens at Riviera and have even played the Monday after the LA Open. Riviera has been one of the great treats of my life in every facet. I would need to recuse myself if I was a rater. I just don't get what is wrong with kikuyu so I must be blinded by bias.

I've never played a course in Florida where I enjoyed the conditioning. That has as much to do with playing at sea level as anything. The ball just feels too heavy for my taste. I can't remember the last time I even took my clubs down there.

The primary reason I joined Dismal after only playing six holes was because I loved how the ball interacted with every aspect of nature in the heart of the Sand Hills. I knew that no matter how poor everyone on this site had said the architecture may have been the condition of play would be something that always made me happy.

Yes, to me how the ball interacts with the air is part of the conditioning. Just the right amount of elevation matters.

[Paul Gray]

I've never played a course in Florida where I enjoyed the conditioning. That has as much to do with playing at sea level as anything. The ball just feels too heavy for my taste. I can't remember the last time I even took my clubs down there.

Yes, to me how the ball interacts with the air is part of the conditioning. Just the right amount of elevation matters.

Jonathan,

Correct me is I'm missing something here but, with the possible exception of Pennard, you've just ruled out ever playing links golf?

Re conditioning, can anyone define good conditioning for me? I recall with horror some of the things done in the earlier nineties to links courses (and a few heathland courses for that matter) in the name of improving conditioning.

[John Kavanaugh]

Courses I prefer because of conditioning as asked by Tom Doak.

I prefer Sand Hills over Ballyneal because of the condition of Sand Hills greens.

I prefer St. Louis CC over Bellerive because of the conditon of the greens and Bellerive installed fans.  One thing that always made me proud about Norwood Hills was that they maintained perfect greens in that horrible St. Louis weather without green side fans.  I hope St. Louis CC still does not have them.

I prefer Pete Dye French Lick over Ross French Lick because of the overall higher quality conditioning.

I prefer Canyata over Wolf Run because of overall greatly higher conditioning.  Wolf Run is the worst conditioned great course I have ever played.

I could make an argument that I prefer Bandon Dunes over Pacific Dunes because of the condition of the bunkers and green surrounds.

Late edit.  I prefer Erin Hills over Lawsonia because of the presentation of the conditioning of the course.  I just can't get past Lawsonia being a goat ranch in sheep's clothing.

Those are just some regional comparisons.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Tom.  Conditioning is a snapshot issue.  That said, if I play a course that is in poor to average nick all the time, I will knock it a notch. Same on the positive side.  Swinley just holds its head above water, but the conditioning does not enhance the design and that a shame.  Pennard gets a bad rap for conditioning, but I think its better than most because its always dry and firm - that goes a long way in book.  

Paul, for me conditioning starts with a dry, firm course.  Second, is thinned rough so balls can be found easily.  Third is similar firmness with greens and approach areas.  Fourth is smooth putting surfaces. Fifth is correct speed for greens.  But #1 is most important and makes the next four much easier to achieve.

Ciao    

[John Kavanaugh]

I've never played a course in Florida where I enjoyed the conditioning. That has as much to do with playing at sea level as anything. The ball just feels too heavy for my taste. I can't remember the last time I even took my clubs down there.

Yes, to me how the ball interacts with the air is part of the conditioning. Just the right amount of elevation matters.

Jonathan,

Correct me is I'm missing something here but, with the possible exception of Pennard, you've just ruled out ever playing links golf?

Re conditioning, can anyone define good conditioning for me? I recall with horror some of the things done in the earlier nineties to links courses (and a few heathland courses for that matter) in the name of improving conditioning.

All sea levels are not the same.  It just doesn't feel like Florida and Oregon are at the same elevation.

[John Kavanaugh]

Conditions are the forces that react with your ball from the instant you make contact to when the ball quits moving. Conditioning is the sum of those conditions.

[Mac Plumart]

Jim Colton...

Can you take out the conditioning scores and re-rank the GD Top 100?

This would be more inline with Tom Doak's wishes and it would be neat to see how the list changes.

[John Kavanaugh]

What happened here?  Someone finally admits that conditioning is the most important aspect of choosing where to play and everyone who agrees hides in shame.  You would think at least the supers would agree.

Here is another regional choice.  I like Mid Pines more than Tobacco Road because of the firm fairways.  The drainage at Tobacco Road is an embarrassment given that it is in a quarry.

[Josh Tarble]

John,
I totally agree with you that conditioning is important when choosing to play in a daily choice.  But, do you think the difference in between say, Muirfield Village and Baltusrol is enough that it should be a main factor?

When I think of top 100 courses, you basically know their conditioning standard will be up to snuff...at least enough that it won't make a huge difference in my personal enjoyment.

[Keith OHalloran]

Josh,
Perhaps Brian Sheehy can weigh in on this again. He has played Shinnecock, Sebonack and NGLA. He thought that the conditioning at Sebonack was the best. All the magazine rankings have Sebonack as a top course, but behind Shinnecock and NGLA so the question to Brian is:
Based on your preferences, if you had the chance to play each course, which would you play?

[John Kavanaugh]

John,
I totally agree with you that conditioning is important when choosing to play in a daily choice.  But, do you think the difference in between say, Muirfield Village and Baltusrol is enough that it should be a main factor?

When I think of top 100 courses, you basically know their conditioning standard will be up to snuff...at least enough that it won't make a huge difference in my personal enjoyment.

The legendary conditioning of Muirfield Village is a major draw for people like me who live near the course.  Besides the annual television coverage I don't know why else anyone would want to play there.  It is a HUGE get in the Illinois/Indiana region and the greens are the only thing anyone who has played there talks about.

Funny thing is that with both Baltusrol and Muirfield Village you better research what construction is being done before making the trip.  Conditioning is a two edged sword for both courses.

[Jason Thurman]

This isn't the only forum I post to. Here's what some golfers outside the treehouse have to say about conditioning:

(Related to a course-ranking thread) "After I rated this course, it occurred to me that conditioning should maybe be given more weight in these ratings. If you have a course like Lafayette that is in poor condition (at least some of the time), but scores well in most other factors, it will get a competitive overall rating relative to other courses. But, if the conditions of a course are poor, I don't even consider playing it. I'd much rather play a well-conditioned course with average use of property, risk reward, etc."

"I personally would prefer to play a manicured, aesthetic course with average design over a poorly conditioned, well-designed course."

"Do you really want to play a well designed course that is a goat ranch in terms of conditions?"

Just a small sample, but if you really don't think conditions make a difference in what course a golfer chooses to play when they have a few to choose from, I think you're confused. Conditions aren't everything to everyone, but they're the most important category for a lot of golfers who might be planning travel itineraries or courses to play based on magazine rankings.

[Patrick Glynn]

John - what did you prefer about Sand Hills' greens?

I have been fortunate to play at SHGC on a number of different occasions and the speed, trueness and overall consistency of their greens never ceases to amaze me. However, I would say that if there is a slight imperfection with the conditioning at Sand Hills, its that the while the greens are fantastically fast, the surrounds are quite soft and not conducive to the ground game.

I do think its important to note that I am not one to play the ground game everywhere, and only do so where appropriate. e.g. if I hit my teeshot pin high right on 7, I think the best approach shot is the 40-yard pitch & run rather than trying to nip a LW over the slope.

Regards,

Patrick

Aside - Agree wholeheartedly that the conditioning at The Renaissance Club is top notch. I do feel that it adds to the experience, if not actually bumping the course's Doak rating.