Isn't conditioning CRITICAL to evaluating a golf course?

[Bart Bradley]

Just how important do we make firm and fast?  Don't we often say that we should try to ignore condition when judging a course?  

Aren't the architectural features of a course neutered by soft conditions? Isn't it a thrill when you show up and a course plays firm and fast?  Aren't ground game options nearly eliminated unless the course is firm?

I played MPCC Shore on Saturday.  The course had very firm fairways, approaches and greens.  The ball rolled out beautifully.  It made the architecture sing.  

Sometimes people here say conditioning just isn't all that important in evaluating the quality of a course.  I just don't see it.  What I do understand is when someone charged with rating a course is willing to investigate if they are playing the course in unusual or exceptional circumstances, and taking those circumstances into account.  

I have played many, many courses across Scotland, England, Ireland, Australia, South Africa...that played firm and fast.

Here in the US, it is simply just not as common.  

Golf Digest sent out a letter a few years ago saying they were going to emphasize course firmness...has that played out in the rankings?  I propose that it is so critical that the score for conditioning be doubled or trebled in importance.  Please note that I am not suggesting courses that are lush and soft be scored high on the conditioning scale...just the contrary.  Shouldn't the rankings reward courses that are kept consistently firm (almost any course can be firmed up for a short time for a tournament -- Pebble is a good example --it doesn't even seem to be firm for the ATand T...just for the Opens)

Some examples of courses in the US that I have played that were truly firm and fast:

1.  Austin Golf Club -- my first experience with truly well presented firm and fast
2.  All of the courses at Bandon
3.  Diamond Creek -- truly a marvel given the environment.
4.  The Olde Farm -- designed and maintained for firm and fast
5.  MPCC Shore -- by far the most firm course I have seen on the Monterey Peninsula
6.  Ballyneal -- great firmness of fairways
7.  Sand Hills -- fast everywhere
8.  Kingsley -- possibly the best meld of conditioning and architecture..clear proof that one is meaningless without the other.
9.  Newport -- I had been told that the back nine tended to play soggy...well, I understand that they undertook some changes and when I was there last fall, it was firm throughout.

Do we give a pass to some historic designs that are just not kept firm and fast?  Why?  Should we?

Just the ramblings of a madman.  Have at it.

Bart

[Mark Saltzman]

Bart,

I agree completely.  I've almost started this thread many times.

Angles are almost irrelevant in soft conditions.

[Jeb Bearer]

Depends. Are we evaluating the course itself, in which case firm and fast is certainly a plus? Or are we evaluating just the architecture, in other words how well the architect did with the property, considering that the architect doesn't have complete control over conditioning? (Realizing you then have to draw a distinction between features the archie controls, like grass types and irrigation, and those he doesn't)

Just my two cents.

[William_G]

A sand base is no doubt the ideal terroir on which to play golf.

MPCC Shore went with a sand cap which portrays the benfits of a true sand site.

Mike Keiser is building 27 more holes on the Southern Oregon Coast because of the sand.

It's all about the drainage of the sand year round, love it.

[Frank M]

I think conditions are very important, but not in the sense that most think of it.

I am a big fan of fast an firm, but only if the golf course is conducive to that type of condition. If Oak Hill is fast and firm through the green this year at the PGA Championship, for example, it can become straight unfair.

[archie_struthers]

 

No,  as students of architecture we should be able to see past conditioning .  It's all about the design .

[john_stiles]

What about firm, smooth, and true greens that were about 9 to 9.5 on the stimp in the good ole USA ?

I don't think that the course would  'favorably' evaluated or dare I say highly rated.

Conditioning is, for better or worse, only overlooked by a few.

[Jason Thurman]

YES.

Without the correct conditioning in place, many architectural features are only hypothetical.

As students of golf courses, we should probably be able to look past conditions and be able to evaluate architecture in a vacuum. But you can't evaluate the golf course as a whole while disregarding conditioning.

[Mark Saltzman]

No,  as students of architecture we should be able to see past conditioning .  It's all about the design .

Why? Design is made more interesting or less interesting by the conditions.

As Frank says, some courses would not be made more interesting by firm conditions.  Sahalee comes to mind.

But many features lose their strategic interest in the maintenance meld is not a proper suit for the architecture.

[Richard Choi]

As Frank says, some courses would not be made more interesting by firm conditions.  Sahalee comes to mind.

I don't know, playing Sahalee with firm fairways would be like playing pinball or pachinko. Could be FUN!

To me, course conditioning is like makeup on a woman. It can greatly enhance and accentuate the underlying beauty if done right and it can positively hide the true beauty underneath if done wrong, but it is what is underneath that truly counts.

[Sean_A]

Of course conditioning should match the style of course, but conditioning doesn't have to be a perfect match or even close to get the idea of what should be going on.  I can understand marking a course down if after visits at different times of the year it proves to be in poor nick.  The opposite is also true.  In my experience, this is rare either way.  Think about it, its the same for rough and trees.  To some degree we overlook these problem issues unless a course is completely congested - don't we?  Perfection just doesn't exist on weekly level.  Also, courses that are open 12 months (are damn near it) would be at a great disadvantage in the rating game (when they should be at an advantage simply because they can be played all year) because they are more at the mercy of mother nature.  I think conditioning has effected my opinion on less than half a dozen courses in GB&I.  More to the point for me, if a course is quite expensive, I expect more for money.  I may not knock it for conditioning, but that issue may keep me from making further visits.  Swinley Forest is a prime example; very expensive and I have never seen better than ok conditions which I can find on £25 course.  That is bad news.

All that said, I agree with Bart, generally speaking, courses in the US are far too wet. Sometimes it doesn't matter much because many designs, at least to some degree, support wetter conditions.  

Ciao

[Neil Regan]

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

 

[Anders Rytter]

I would distinguish between the architecture of the course and the current playing qualities.

A great course can play poor if conditioning is way off what was intended.

If using the Mona Lisa once again. Is that a bad painting just because the light is turned off? No, but evaluating her potential/qualities is harder.

[Sean_A]

Bart,

I agree completely.  I've almost started this thread many times.

Angles are almost irrelevant in soft conditions.

Again, agree fully with this. Assessing a course irrelevant of prevailing conditions is an academic exercise and nothing more. I say prevailing conditions as I frequently hear posters say: "but how can you assess a course based on conditions as they are CONSTANTLY changing" - well, yes to an extent, but I think if we're to be truthful we would acknowledge that the best courses seem to achieve pretty consistently firm conditions and never seem to fall back on excuses.

On that point, it appears that certain clubs / courses always seem to have an excuse why firmness isn't achieved (wrong climate, wet summer etc etc - pointing to any number of factors) - yet down the road from them are courses that consistently achieved the ideal conditions for show casing the architecture.

I can only conclude that what really seems to determine ideal conditions / firmness is the abilities of its green keeping staff and not the extraneous factors that are so frequently pointed to - granted they influence it - but not as much as a great green keeper. This is just my surmising - I am sure you will all tell me I am wrong! 

Brian

You seem to be focusing solely on firmness.  There are other issues which make up conditioning.  Using Swinley as an example, how do you feel about its conditioning?

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Bart,

It's a valid point, but you have to look at both the design and the conditioning IMO.  A dogtrack in great condition is still a dogtrack.  Obviously a large measure of the fun of playing places like Kingsley repeatedly comes from the wonderful F&F conditioning.  As for Digest, aside from the fact that their priorities are f&c%ed, it seems that the new conditioning criteria haven't been taken to heart.  Raising the weighting doesn't make sense if most raters don't know what they're looking for.  Additionally, Sean's point is a good one.  What percentage of raters see a course more than once in various seasons?

[archie_struthers]

  ;)

I guess CRITICAL in the posed question prompted my reply.  If you are asking about the golf course as a player, of course the maintenance meld becomes paramount to maximum enjoyment. However as students of GCA, the underlying bones and strategy of the holes should be quite evident to most of us here .

When I first saw Pine Vally it was by today's standards fat and slow. Despite that , the architectural genius was obvious. Having seen the golf course over the next three decades, when it is firm and fast  it is extra special , and the features of greatness magnified. However it's the bones not the make-up for me.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Conditioning / maintenance meld is very important but:

1. Too many golfers rate courses almost entirely by the condition of the greens on the day they play. That is entirely wrong.
2. A course does not need to play completely F&F to be in "good condition" and hence I don't consider soil type when thinking about conditioning. Soil type improves other aspects of a course such as strategy / variability / shot type. Heavy clay courses can be impeccably maintained whilst not playing particularly firm.

[Ryan DeMay]

Bart,

I agree completely.  I've almost started this thread many times.

Angles are almost irrelevant in soft conditions.

Again, agree fully with this. Assessing a course irrelevant of prevailing conditions is an academic exercise and nothing more. I say prevailing conditions as I frequently hear posters say: "but how can you assess a course based on conditions as they are CONSTANTLY changing" - well, yes to an extent, but I think if we're to be truthful we would acknowledge that the best courses seem to achieve pretty consistently firm conditions and never seem to fall back on excuses.

On that point, it appears that certain clubs / courses always seem to have an excuse why firmness isn't achieved (wrong climate, wet summer etc etc - pointing to any number of factors) - yet down the road from them are courses that consistently achieved the ideal conditions for show casing the architecture.

I can only conclude that what really seems to determine ideal conditions / firmness is the abilities of its green keeping staff and not the extraneous factors that are so frequently pointed to - granted they influence it - but not as much as a great green keeper. This is just my surmising - I am sure you will all tell me I am wrong!  

Several factors should be considered including the infrastructure of the golf course (i.e. irrigation system, soil type, as well as surface and subsurface drainage), the resources (maintenance budget, equipment, etc.), and most importantly the wherewithal of the powers-that-be.  You are correct that in a very limited number of situations lack of a talented superintendent does affect playing conditions.  Some on here would say that superintendents know only one way of doing things (firm and fast vs. green and soggy) but, I would argue that superintendents are an incredibly adaptable group capable of producing the desired conditions for a club.

What this thread speaks to is the widening continuum on what are acceptable course conditions at different clubs.  One item I feel can only be a good thing is using this discussion amongst a membership, green committee, superintendent, ownership, etc. to develop maintenance standards for their facilities.  Such a document outlines objectives, identifies areas of high priority and allows all stakeholders to have input into matching appropriate resources with conditioning priorities.  

My personal opinion is that there are many superintendents that are in a purgatory of differing, subjective opinions on how the golf course should be conditioned.  The bottom line is that the job of the superintendent is to do his/her best to provide the condition desired or mandated by their employer.  The question is, if superintendents are aiming for a moving target, how can the conditions be evaluated if a certain faction of their bosses are dissatisfied?

Below are some good articles on golf course maintenance standards.

http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2005/050901.pdf

http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/article/niven-value-3-8-13.pdf

http://www.golfcourseindustry.com/gci-02032010-sample-maintenance-standards.aspx

[Tom_Doak]

I'm with Archie on this one.

Having a golf course in the proper condition DOES do a lot to bring out the quality of the design, no question.  But great courses are still great, even when they're not in great shape.  Archie's point is a great one, that even the best courses of 30-40 years ago would not be considered in great condition by today's standards, but they worked just fine.

The problems with putting too much emphasis on conditioning are:

1.  Conditioning fluctuates from year to year, season to season, and even day to day, and

2.  GOLF DIGEST panelists have proven that even supposedly educated golfers judge conditioning by what's green and if the greens are fast, even when they're told not to.

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?

If yes, please don't offer your opinions here anymore, as they will only confuse us.

[David_Elvins]

I am with Bart on this one.  The fact is that you can not always see great architecture visually, if you could we wouldn't get 'doaked' on the greens with putts that break the wrong way.  Sometimes you have to see the ball rolling around to really see what has been built.

My first round at my home club was after a week's rain and the greens were slow and soft. I made some notes for when I next saw the architect so as to chat about his work there.  Thank god I never saw him before playing the course a few more times because it turns out that the two greens that I thought were too flat actually have A LOT of tilt in them.  I couldn't see it on my first round and it wasn't showing up in the putts I hit.  It wasn't until I played the course in better condition that I saw this great architecture.

[Rob_Waldron]

Tom

How much consideration do you give to the long range maintenance and course conditioning plan when you design a course? I would think that a course designed to play firm and fast and maintained "fat and slow" (using Archie's term) would lose some of the strategies intended by the architect. Unfortunately I do not think the architect's intent is always translated to the owner or the superintendent. Two cases in point are Laurel Valley in PA and Bulle Rock in MD. Both of these courses are CONSISTENTLY overwatered to appear lush and green and it is done on purpose. Nothing against the architects but when I rate these course I feel obligated to actually lower the conditioning rating because they are not firm and fast. When I inquired about the frustratingly soft fairways at Bulle Rock I was told the only time they were firm and fast was for the LPGA Championship when the responsibility for setting course conditioning was taken away from the Super...  

[Thomas Dai]

Some spot on lines here -

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

and "A great course can play poor if conditioning is way off what was intended" (Anders).

I have much sympathy for an architect etc who plans a course to play firm and fast where the head course maintenance man, for whatever reasons - could be inexperience, could be £$£$ related - then makes it play green and soggy.

I also have great sympathy for a head course maintenance man who really wants to keep his job and have a firm and fast course but is pressurised by the membership/owners/committee into maintaining the course in a way he disagrees with.

I will play a course that's generally a little shaggy at the edges or is a bit off kilter maintenance wise so long as it has good smooth and true rolling greens - obviously I'd prefer not to but if necessary I can put up with poor tees and poor fairways, so long as they're not damp and muddy. But I abhor bad greens. You don't even need to putt on the greens to know how good they are going to be, you can usually tell with your eyes and certainly you'll know if the greens are any good just by walking on them, you can feel the quality of the surface under your feet.

Whilst I appreciate that the design, terrain, soils, climate etc etc all play a part, IMO it mostly comes down to the people involved. Good people on the staff and on the committees normally means a good course and club whereas...............

All the best

[Kevin Lynch]

The problems with putting too much emphasis on conditioning are:

1.  Conditioning fluctuates from year to year, season to season, and even day to day, and

2.  GOLF DIGEST panelists have proven that even supposedly educated golfers judge conditioning by what's green and if the greens are fast, even when they're told not to.

During my first 15-20 years playing, I had friends who were exactly like those you describe in #2, who would tell me how great certain courses were.  When I asked them why, they would tell me about the "impeccable conditions" and "how fast the greens were."

Given their definition, I didn't care about conditioning because I focused solely on the design, angles, variety of shots, etc.  I played a county-run course that was low on staffing and maintenance $, but I knew it was a decent design, even if the bunkers weren't edged, or there were bald spots throughout.  If the greens were hard from lack of watering, I didn't care - I just learned how to run shots in.

Now, I have new friends here at GCA, and their definition of "conditioning" is much more meaningful.  As you say, the conditioning focus here is on emphasizing the architectural features, rather than pure decoration which tries to compensate for a lack of substance.

[Kevin Lynch]

Having a golf course in the proper condition DOES do a lot to bring out the quality of the design, no question.  But great courses are still great, even when they're not in great shape.  Archie's point is a great one, that even the best courses of 30-40 years ago would not be considered in great condition by today's standards, but they worked just fine.

The problems with putting too much emphasis on conditioning are:

1.  Conditioning fluctuates from year to year, season to season, and even day to day, and

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?


I appreciate Mark Saltzman's point that soft courses make certain features (e.g. strategic angles, green slopes) less relevant.  But, given that weather conditions are out of your control, as is geographic location (no way to avoid wet springs or falls in Western New York), can a course be considered great if it relies on optimal firm & fast conditioning?

I'm not sure which way I lean on that question, but I know that some of my favorite course can be enjoyed even in the late fall slop.  I played Leatherstocking twice, and each time was after extended periods of rain.  Still, its greatness came through to me and was a joy to play.  Of course it would it be even better under dry conditions, but it wasn't reduced to a meaningless track under wet conditions.

When I think about my favorite courses that are "condition-proof" (Ballyhack, Byrncliff, Leatherstocking, Tobacco Road), one similar element is severity of terrain and the accompanying blind / partially blind shots that result.  While bold terrain and blindness often polarizes raters, I find it interesting that these types of courses can be "all-seasonal", whereas others may lose their interest in sub-optimal conditions.

[Sean_A]

I'm with Archie on this one.

Having a golf course in the proper condition DOES do a lot to bring out the quality of the design, no question.  But great courses are still great, even when they're not in great shape.  Archie's point is a great one, that even the best courses of 30-40 years ago would not be considered in great condition by today's standards, but they worked just fine.

Just as guys float toward the pro game to evaluate architecture - we seem to be floating toward the top echelon in this discussion. 

Tom

What if we aren't talking about the best courses - just good, solid designs?  

Ciao