Isn't conditioning CRITICAL to evaluating a golf course?

[Jud_T]

How many Doak 10's aren't built on sandy terrain?  Aside from the wonderful natural humps and bumps you get, the drainage prevents these courses from ever playing truly poorly.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Whilst ideally a course design should be matched by its conditioning based upon the architects intent of that design, sometimes I think we can overlook certain conditioning elements  in order to admire the design
Lets say that a current grrens committee want there course Augusta green, but the original design did not call for such conditioning, should the deign itself br criticised, I beleive not.
On the other hand if Mr Doak for example builds some greens with a speed of 8/9 as the intended spped, yet the club decides to run them at 11 and they become unplayable is that Toms fault...again of course No.
Sopmetimes we on this site become bogged down with firm and fast because that is what we want to see and if we dont get that become dissapointed in the overall experience, which ends up beinga little harsh on the architect.
Case in point......
Chechessee Creek.
I love the place and had the pleasure of playing it a few times.
I played with Mr Kluger this past week at Streamsong who had only played the course in wet, soggy conditions and as such was not too impressed.
I agree with him 100%.
My first outing there was frim and fast, so I fell in love with the place.
the second time there was soggy...not so much...third time firm and fast loved it again, so the conditioning does have an impact but perhaps we are too harsh to judge because of it.
there were some other factors that Jerry had as well, so I dont want to call him out here as being harsh, that is not my intent, he had some very valid points, but just using that as an example...sorry Partner!!

[BCrosby]

Playing a great course with the wrong maintenance meld
is like watching high-school Shakespeare.

A brilliant analogy. But it is still Shakespeare, no? Even without Lawrence Olivier, the question that my ''too too solid flesh might melt..." still packs a punch.

Bob

[Jason Thurman]

Bottom line -- would you really want to skip a course like Royal Dornoch [or Brora] because the conditioning was off kilter, and play a predictable over-bunkered modern course instead because it was in good shape?

I agree with a lot of Tom's post, and I would be much more interested in seeing a unique course in average condition if my other option was a predictable one. Conditioning isn't the be-all-end-all of making a decision about which course to play for me.

But it can be a nice tie-breaker. Like many around here, I love Lawsonia. Unlike some, I also love Erin Hills, and probably rate it just slightly better. If the courses were equally conditioned when I've visited, I'd probably prefer Lawsonia by a fairly healthy margin. But I've only seen Lawsonia in decent but slow condition on my three visits, while the two times I've been to Erin Hills it's been in outstanding shape.

The result is that a lot of the splendid architecture at Lawsonia feels like it's just eye candy. As cool as it sounds to hit a low runner over the bunker at 10 and run it up to the green, or to fly the bunkers on 13 and watch the ball roll out to the left and down the fairway to possibly set up a real decision for the second shot, a lot of it just doesn't work in practice. Meanwhile, the slope left of the 5th green at Erin Hills is pretty tame but it plays fast enough to actually run a ball around the fronting bunker. While Lawsonia has more interesting shots in its design, its slow conditioning eliminates many of them. Meanwhile, the fast conditions at Erin Hills bring out a lot of opportunities for fun shots.

Jud's post makes a good point too. A certain element of conditioning is contingent on design, and we should probably judge the architecture of the course on some level if it drains worse than other courses in its area and on similar soils.

[Ally Mcintosh]

A completely unrelated question for Brian S and Sean A...

Where have your surnames gone?

Have you eradicated them so your comments on a variety of subjects are less easily findable when people do a google search for you? If so, this seems to make sense...

[Mark Chaplin]

Bart - if you'd played MPCC yesterday you'd have found the fairways heavily sanded. Unfortunately they cored and sanded the greens at CPC on Monday.

Brian - does that mean you rater types turn up anonymously and pay full whack as well?

[Tom_Doak]

I would like to offer up a different version of the question based on Tom's concern.

Can a course be considered great if its greatness DEPENDS on the conditioning?

There's a great quote in The Anatomy of a Golf Course that I stole from Tom Watson, who said it on one of his overseas trips:

"If a course needs to be in great condition to be played effectively, then the design strategy is flawed."


I agree that proper conditioning will always ENHANCE a course's appeal; that's why I try to maintain a good relationship with the superintendents of my courses, as much as with the clients.     I just don't think a course has to be knocked back behind well-conditioned courses just because it's a cow pasture.  After all, Westward Ho! and Brora and Pennard are all cow pastures, and they're pretty good golf courses.

[Sean_A]

I would like to offer up a different version of the question based on Tom's concern.

Can a course be considered great if its greatness DEPENDS on the conditioning?

Westward Ho! and Brora and Pennard are all cow pastures, and they're pretty good golf courses.

Quite literally!

Ciao

[Bart Bradley]

I would like to offer up a different version of the question based on Tom's concern.

Can a course be considered great if its greatness DEPENDS on the conditioning?

There's a great quote in The Anatomy of a Golf Course that I stole from Tom Watson, who said it on one of his overseas trips:

"If a course needs to be in great condition to be played effectively, then the design strategy is flawed."


I agree that proper conditioning will always ENHANCE a course's appeal; that's why I try to maintain a good relationship with the superintendents of my courses, as much as with the clients.     I just don't think a course has to be knocked back behind well-conditioned courses just because it's a cow pasture.  After all, Westward Ho! and Brora and Pennard are all cow pastures, and they're pretty good golf courses.

But Tom(s):

If a course plays soft 90% of the time and that softness mutes or diminishes the quality of the playing angles, strategies and features, can it really be considered a great course?  I understand that some design aspects can overcome soft conditions, but certainly not all. 

When poor conditions consistently prevent the design from working properly, how does one evaluate it? 

Aren't golf courses meant to be played, not looked at?  You might look and see wonderful design but if the ball never reacts the way that your eyes tell you it should...it is not really a wonderful design, is it?

Just some questions for thought.

Bart

[Tom_Doak]

But Tom(s):

If a course plays soft 90% of the time and that softness mutes or diminishes the quality of the playing angles, strategies and features, can it really be considered a great course?  I understand that some design aspects can overcome soft conditions, but certainly not all. 

When poor conditions consistently prevent the design from working properly, how does one evaluate it? 

I guess I would focus on that last sentence ... whether the conditions really "prevent the design from working properly".  If we were in court, that would seem like a large burden of proof.

People often ask me why I bother building golf holes that support the ground game, when I know that often the course won't be kept in condition to support it.  And I respond that even if the ground isn't so firm and fast, if the wind is behind you or you're a senior who can't get the ball in the air so well, that open approach is still going to matter.  It may not matter to a great player, but it still matters.

So, I would say yes to your first question.  If the course is soft 90% of the time, it could still be a great course.  Not as great as if the conditions were perfect, but not enough to disqualify it from greatness.

[Peter Pallotta]

Playing a great course with the wrong maintenance meld
is like watching high-school Shakespeare.

A brilliant analogy. But it is still Shakespeare, no? Even without Lawrence Olivier, the question that my ''too too solid flesh might melt..." still packs a punch.

Bob

And yet, if I'm honest I have to say I'd rather read Shakespeare out loud than watch a highschool production. Even the greatest design, like a great play - eg King Lear - is but a blue-print for an 'enactment', and when the enactment faiils so has the blueprint -- through no fault of its own, and for only that one specific time/place/enactment, but a failure nonetheless.  

[Shaun Feidt]

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning.  The problem is there are so many different factors that come in to play.  There are obvious weather and climate factors, but also construction methods, irrigation, drainage, etc.  Courses that can produce these conditions on a dialy basis usually have a couple of common factors.  Many of the modern courses have been completely constructed out of, or on top of sand.  This is a huge advantage when comparing conditions at a modern sand capped course vs. an older course which was built on a clay/silt/loam material.

[Shaun Feidt]

Sorry, this is the rest of my rant. It was cut from the first post


 Climate also plays a huge factor.  When you have a climate such as the oregon coast, it is the ideal setting to grow cool season grasses.  In fact, Oregon is where the majority of all bentgrass seed is produced. Another factor is the grass type.   Obviously the  budget to produce theses types of conditions also need to exist.
 I know there are still some courses in the south that try to maintain bentgrass greens, although many have made the switch to a dwarf bermuda because they want to achieve the firm fast condition that everyone likes.  A superintendent quote "Managing bent grass greens in the south is like having your greens on life support for 4 months out of the year.  Now with bermuda, our greens get better and better as spring turns to summer."   
Speaking from experience, with push up style greens in the Northeast, you are truely at the whim of Mother Nature.  I think most superintendents would agree that managing a golf course during a drought is much easier than managing a golf course during a monsoon season. 

[BCrosby]

Peter -

I think we agree. I too would rather attend a good production of Shakespeare than a bad one.

But even bad ones are ok. I have, btw, attended a couple of the dreaded high school (severely abridged) productions of Shakespeare. They weren't awful. The oddities of Elizabethan English meant the kids slowed down. I heard things you don't sometimes hear when lines are spoken professionally.

Parallels with badly maintained but well designed courses? 

Bob

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

[Jud_T]

My old club had a very limited membership.  If everything wasn't bright green and the sprinklers weren't running every morning, even when a storm was forecast, someone's head would have rolled.

[Greg Tallman]

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..
Sorry mate, I would disagree with that... the masses prefer green and soft

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

[Mark Saltzman]

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..
Sorry mate, I would disagree with that... the masses prefer green and soft

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

Greg, not soft, 'receptive' is the word you're looking for 

[Jason Topp]

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

We got my prior course very firm while still a nice green color.  It makes the game much more difficult.  My guess is that about 20% of members liked it.  We wound up softening a bit. 

Nonetheless, it does seem that many local clubs have firmed up their greens quite a bit in the last 5 years.  Light rollers on push up greens have become pretty common.  I have not noticed the same trend on public courses.

Tee to green is pretty weather dependent.

[Greg Tallman]

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..
Sorry mate, I would disagree with that... the masses prefer green and soft

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

Greg, not soft, 'receptive' is the word you're looking for 

Yes Mark, greens and fairways that properly reward a "well" struck golf shot

[David Kelly]

This quote from Wallace Stegner should be posted in every locker room at every golf course in America,  "You have to get over the color green; you have to quit associating beauty with gardens and lawns; you have to get used to an inhuman scale."

[Shaun Feidt]

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..
Sorry mate, I would disagree with that... the masses prefer green and soft

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

Greg, not soft, 'receptive' is the word you're looking for 

Yes Mark, greens and fairways that properly reward a "well" struck golf shot

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..
Sorry mate, I would disagree with that... the masses prefer green and soft

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

Greg, not soft, 'receptive' is the word you're looking for 

Yes Mark, greens and fairways that properly reward a "well" struck golf shot

Speaking from a maintenance standpoint, I think the majority of superintendents try to achieve firm fast conditions because that is what the majority of golfers feel what makes for great conditioning..
Sorry mate, I would disagree with that... the masses prefer green and soft

Shaun.
Do you think this is true for the golfing masses?
Is this really what they view as great conditioning?

I know at my course if the course was running firm and fast, but the grass was less green than usual, they would not consider it great conditioning, those on this iste would say it is, but the mass public I am not so sure?

What do the rest of you think?

Of course growing up in the UK the statement would be true for most of the heathland courses I played on, not so sure over here in the US though!

Greg, not soft, 'receptive' is the word you're looking for 

Yes Mark, greens and fairways that properly reward a "well" struck golf shot

Quick answer cause I hate typing on my phone.  No you are probably correct that the masses do not enjoy firm and fast,  but many better players seem to enjoy those conditions.  For myself, I do not receive any recognition for having a soft and slow golf course.  The only way I will advance my career is to provide the best conditions possible on a daily basis.  The masses may disagree on firm conditions,  but everyone seems to want fast greens. 

[Shaun Feidt]

Sorry for the long quotes on last past, using the site from a phone is not recommended

[Thomas Dai]

"the masses prefer green and soft" - I can't quite work out from the various posts who initially said this but it's a pretty accurate comment IMO.

Breaking down different categories of golfers I'd go along the following general lines of thought applying the 80-20 rule of thumb -

1) 80% of ladies - like the course to look nice and pretty and green. Like longer grass in the fairway so it's easier for them to get the ball in the air. Will moan if the greens are to firm - "these greens are to fast, I can't put on them". Hate rough and bunkers and forced water carries.

2) 80% of seniors - not fussed about the colour green but like the putting surfaces soft so their low trajectory shots might have a chance of stopping. Will moan if the greens are to firm - "these greens are to fast, I can't put on them". Like longer grass in the fairway so it's easier for them to get the ball in the air. Hate rough and bunkers and forced water carries.

3) Higher handicap men - not fussed about the colour green but like the putting surfaces soft so their low trajectory shots might have a chance of stopping. Will moan if the greens are to firm - "these greens are to fast, I can't put on them". Like longer grass in the fairway so it's easier for them to get the ball in the air. Hate rough and bunkers and forced water carries.

4) Juniors - don't care at all until they become reasonably proficient and then they like it firm and fast (let's face it, it's unusual for a junior who's a less proficient player to even carry on with the game). Doesn't really matter what any junior thinks though as vertually no grown up at a golf club will ever take any notice of anything a junior says/wants/prefers/likes unless the juniors Dad or Mum is on one of the club committee's.

5) Lower handicap men, seniors and ladies or those who used to be lower handicap players until they got older. Usually prefer firm and fast with shorter length fairway mowing and a bit of a challenge hazard wise but some like the greens soft to help their rubbish shorts games and those who are wild off the tee don't like rough, OB or water hazards

Regrettably it seems that many committee's at golf clubs are full of people in categories 1, 2 and 3 above and what's worse, they also watch golf on colour TV.

Is this a fair summary or am I being cynical and unkind?

All the best.

[Jud_T]

Thomas,

Isn't it often the low handicap players who want the greens to be "receptive" and fair?