[John Kavanaugh]

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.

Patrick,

I said that I prefer the conditioning of the greens at Sand Hills over those at Ballyneal.  If you have played both courses I would think that is self explanatory.  It's the difference between falling in love over the slightest glance from a girl you know you are going to marry and picking up an embarrassment that will never see the light of day when you are sloppy drunk.  One is perfect, one is fun, they are both memorable but I prefer perfect.

[Josh Tarble]

I definitely get the argument of conditioning for a regular play...I personally would rather play a well conditioned course vs a poor one every day.  

My point that I'm trying to make is that it probably doesn't make sense for the top 100 to 200 courses in the world.  Save a couple (Augusta for example), is their condition so good that it would influence a person to play somewhere over another?  I haven't played enough really good courses to know but I'm guessing it's not.

But an example, Harbor Town vs East Lake. Their rankings are fairly close on the US scale.  I'm guessing their conditioning scores were far apart. East Lake was immaculate, Harbor Town was really good, but it's still a public track.  I know I'd choose Harbor Town 8 or 9 out of 10 plays.

[Jud_T]

Under the new definition of F&F, If there are 50 courses in this country that are better conditioned than Kingsley I will eat Kavanaugh's grodiest golf hat with a fine claret (on second thought it might be better paired with a boilermaker).  I know I'm a homer, but regardless of what you think of the course, there's absolutely no debating the sublime playability of the turf.

[John Kavanaugh]

Under the new definition of F&F, If there are 50 courses in this country that are better conditioned than Kingsley I will eat Kavanaugh's grodiest golf hat with a fine claret (on second thought it might be better paired with a boilermaker).  I know I'm a homer, but regardless of what you think of the course, there's absolutely no debating the sublime playability of the turf.

That is why true golfers travel.

[Paul Gray]

I definitely get the argument of conditioning for a regular play...I personally would rather play a well conditioned course vs a poor one every day. 

My point that I'm trying to make is that it probably doesn't make sense for the top 100 to 200 courses in the world.  Save a couple (Augusta for example), is their condition so good that it would influence a person to play somewhere over another?  I haven't played enough really good courses to know but I'm guessing it's not.

But an example, Harbor Town vs East Lake. Their rankings are fairly close on the US scale.  I'm guessing their conditioning scores were far apart. East Lake was immaculate, Harbor Town was really good, but it's still a public track.  I know I'd choose Harbor Town 8 or 9 out of 10 plays.

Exactly.

No one wants to play a track with mud baths for greens but, much as Tom suggested, very few would choose Renaissance over Muirfield simply because of marginally better conditioning.

[Alex Miller]

In the simplist of terms, I believe the Doak scale implies a rating based on solid conditioning for that course: I may be wrong.

Poor conditioning can take an 8 and turn it into a 5 simply because the strategy that would be there cannot be used and it is not as good a course because of it. So if there is a perfectly conditioned 6 I could play instead I probably would.

Now how people come upon their own personal rankings is out of my hands, but if the conditioning makes the course less strategic of less enjoyable (and personally this has to do with firmness more than greenspeed), then it definitely matters and has an impact on where I choose to play.

[Mark Pritchett]

I started this thread becasue in the other thread (Golf Digest Rankings) some people were saying courses with high conditioning scores (MV, Quarry, Alotian, ANGC, et al) did not relect the criteria.  I checked the Planet Golf and was found it interesting that their conditioning list was similiar to Golf Digest. 

I think many people here have the mentality that brown grass=fast and firm and green grass=slow and overwatered though that is certainly not always the case. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I started this thread becasue in the other thread (Golf Digest Rankings) some people were saying courses with high conditioning scores (MV, Quarry, Alotian, ANGC, et al) did not relect the criteria.  I checked the Planet Golf and was found it interesting that their conditioning list was similiar to Golf Digest. 

I think many people here have the mentality that brown grass=fast and firm and green grass=slow and overwatered though that is certainly not always the case. 

Exactly, the problem lies in that too many golfers wait for perfect to find them.  It's out there everyday if you know how to look.

[Tom_Doak]

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

That was true for Matt Ward, too, so you've got that going for you. 

No reason to argue about your view, it's yours.  Other people like the condition of links golf better, and can't rate anything else as highly, and that doesn't mean they're right, either.  To me, it's all a question of whether the conditioning works hand in hand with the design of the course.

[Tom_Doak]

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.

This is what I don't get, why the "greens" are important but the immediate surrounds of the greens don't matter in the conditioning scores.  To me the relationship between the two is vitally important, and that's the main reason I generally prefer links courses, because they usually get that part just right.

[jeffwarne]

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

That was true for Matt Ward, too, so you've got that going for you. 

No reason to argue about your view, it's yours.  Other people like the condition of links golf better, and can't rate anything else as highly, and that doesn't mean they're right, either.  To me, it's all a question of whether the conditioning works hand in hand with the design of the course.

and can the rater separate "conditioning" from recent weather occurrences, and climate conditions and soil temperatures at a certain time of year.

[Alex Miller]

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.

This is what I don't get, why the "greens" are important but the immediate surrounds of the greens don't matter in the conditioning scores.  To me the relationship between the two is vitally important, and that's the main reason I generally prefer links courses, because they usually get that part just right.

Seems silly to give Tom Doak a +1, but... +1!

This is the reason that the conditioning for The Open seems to be better than the US Open year after year. I'd imagine the same grass on fairways and greens a large reason they are able to get it right.

[JMEvensky]

This is what I don't get, why the "greens" are important but the immediate surrounds of the greens don't matter in the conditioning scores.  To me the relationship between the two is vitally important, and that's the main reason I generally prefer links courses, because they usually get that part just right.

You are a very sophisticated player--you've played all kinds of golf courses in all kinds of conditions. In today's world,you're part of the 1%. To the other 99%,the greens are the golf course--everything else is eye wash.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's my birthday and I have received many well wishes but the Matt Ward reference sooooooo made my day.

[Terry Lavin]

Conditioning of a golf course is something that matters to me, but it's easy to see how different people could over or underrate a course based on this factor. Many are easily seduced by computer graphic perfection while others value a mottled look. I will say that perfect maintenance is hard to ignore.

[Patrick Glynn]

That is the kicker - you cannot ignore the surrounds when analysing green conditions. That is why I stand by my assertion that Royal County Down is the best conditioned course that I have ever played. The greens are true, and quite fast for links. Couple that with surrounds that are essentially the same surface as green, just mowed slightly higher, and you have a recipe for success IMHO.

Regards,

Patrick

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.

This is what I don't get, why the "greens" are important but the immediate surrounds of the greens don't matter in the conditioning scores.  To me the relationship between the two is vitally important, and that's the main reason I generally prefer links courses, because they usually get that part just right.

[Jeff Tang]

Like it or not conditioning is important to a lot of people.  I enjoy playing a manicured course but if given the choice would rather play one where the maintenance practices bring out all of the options that the architecture was designed for.  If the course doesn't look as "nice" so be it.  This probably is not the stance of a lot of the general golfing public I would think.  I guess what I'm saying is all else equal I prefer a nicely manicured course unless it is at the expense of the playing characteristics.

[Jud_T]

Conditioning of a golf course is something that matters to me, but it's easy to see how different people could over or underrate a course based on this factor. Many are easily seduced by computer graphic perfection while others value a mottled look. I will say that perfect maintenance is hard to ignore.

I value a mottled look in everything except my women.  Is that wrong?

[Jim Colton]

I started this thread becasue in the other thread (Golf Digest Rankings) some people were saying courses with high conditioning scores (MV, Quarry, Alotian, ANGC, et al) did not relect the criteria.  I checked the Planet Golf and was found it interesting that their conditioning list was similiar to Golf Digest. 

I think many people here have the mentality that brown grass=fast and firm and green grass=slow and overwatered though that is certainly not always the case. 

Mark,

 Did Darius have a stated definition for Best Conditioning? Maybe the issue is Golf Digest raters are asked to rate conditioning based on one definition but are actually scoring on another (one inherently similar to Darius). I called it '1 to Augusta' which seems to fit pretty well.

 Mac, the google doc has a tab with all of the Digest category scores. You should be able to easily sum just the columns you want. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9I2sGAMtMU9SEJ4WHR4d3lFWlE

[John Kavanaugh]

I started this thread becasue in the other thread (Golf Digest Rankings) some people were saying courses with high conditioning scores (MV, Quarry, Alotian, ANGC, et al) did not relect the criteria.  I checked the Planet Golf and was found it interesting that their conditioning list was similiar to Golf Digest. 

I think many people here have the mentality that brown grass=fast and firm and green grass=slow and overwatered though that is certainly not always the case. 

Mark,

 Did Darius have a stated definition for Best Conditioning? Maybe the issue is Golf Digest raters are asked to rate conditioning based on one definition but are actually scoring on another (one inherently similar to Darius). I called it '1 to Augusta' which seems to fit pretty well.

 Mac, the google doc has a tab with all of the Digest category scores. You should be able to easily sum just the columns you want. https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9I2sGAMtMU9SEJ4WHR4d3lFWlE

Jim,

Would you travel to Ballyneal with such a light step in your gait if the conditioning were the same as so many a summer Chicago course?  Don't guys like me, you and Jud really have one thing in common, we love to see the ball bounce and roll along the grounds that we love. Isn't it really just that simple?  It's the conditions of the conditions that bring us back.

[Patrick Glynn]

Does anyone know the best way to present a table on this forum?

The below shows the reranked Top 100 if we completely ignore the conditioning stats. In general, not many moves outside of 10 courses.

Biggest Movers (Positive)
 
Course                    Delta
Ballyneal                    19
Harbour Town            24
Maidstone Club            25
Kapalua (Plantation)    19
Somerset Hills            13

Biggest Movers (Negative)

Course                            Delta
Flint Hills                           -11
Eagle Point                     -17
The Preserve                   -11
Double Eagle                   -16
The Quarry at La Quinta   -12

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoY9nPXUI9bWdDdnUXZnWEtkeEd2WVgxWjE0RXlqeHc

[Jim Colton]

John,

  The light step is from the new HHH TRUE sensei's. They are amazing!

  I agree with you that the conditioning at BN or Bandon or wherever being unique and part of the experience. I think Tom has it right -- does the conditioning add to or detract from the architecture? Then factor it in. I think it can be accounted for without being a category in and of itself.

[David Kelly]

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

When I was at Sand Hills this summer there was one day when the wind was so strong that balls wouldn't stay on a few of the greens and there were two greens in particular where you couldn't finish because every ball would roll off of the green after you putted.

With the same wind at Ballyneal we didn't encounter those issues. 

I don't know if you would call this a conditioning issue but it did matter as you played the golf course.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

  The light step is from the new HHH TRUE sensei's. They are amazing!

  I agree with you that the conditioning at BN or Bandon or wherever being unique and part of the experience. I think Tom has it right -- does the conditioning add to or detract from the architecture? Then factor it in. I think it can be accounted for without being a category in and of itself.

Who has categories?  If you can't be true to the magazine you represent you are not true to yourself.

[Jim Colton]

John,

  Who's saying that? I score to the definition and handbook as best I can.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()