[JDoyle]

There is a 36 hole muni facility in Bridgeport, CT called Fairchild Wheeler.  When I lived nearby I would play there late in the day because it was empty and I could get a loop in under 2 1/2 hrs.  One of the reasons it was empty was because the course was not in very good condition due to a lack of financial support by the city.  As a result the course was firm and fast - the ground game was in full bloom (so to speak).  A well struck drive got plenty of roll and the couse appeared as a throw-back to a style of golf long forgotten.

Looking at Paul Turner's great photos of Edgbaston & Harborne reminded me of the old playing conditions at the Wheel.  Those conditions, descibed by Paul as "a dusty phase...were the grass is nearly dead", are nearly extinct in the US for many political reasons.  (And if you know where they do exist please post the news!)  I realized that I would pass on a superior designed golf course in order to enjoy the ground conditions I prefer.  I am I alone?


Would most of you choose:

A.  A superior designed course

or

B. A course that maintained conditions you most preferred.

[Norbert P]

 One is utterly ruint without the other.

[Tom_Doak]

It depends on what level of good and bad you mean.

A flat, boring golf course in perfect shape is still a waste of time.  I never play golf on those ... never.

On the other hand, I sometimes play in the dirt on courses we are building to get a feel for them, and sometimes it is great fun.  But it wouldn't be if I was losing balls right and left in weedy grass.

Tom Watson once said that a really well-designed course would stay interesting even if the conditioning were bad.  I agree with that.  It's not as fun as when the conditions are good, but it's still better than flat and boring.

I know I'm in the minority on this, but the rest of the world is only stuck where they are because they've never played Cypress Point or St. Andrews to see the other side.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Yale @ # 69 in Golf Magazine answers the question for me. Now if the could get rid of the unions, get a budget from the athletic department, get rid of those cart parts on .......

[david h. carroll]

Tom- good question and I think it depends upon the player's knowledge of architecture and history...I, for one, love to play Banks' Annapolis Roads nine holer which is never in any kind of shape, the greens have been shrunk to mere 10 pace across circles, the fairways are crabgrass and there's no sand in any of the what were cavernous bunkers, but the layout and architectural features are amazing!  As to a "dusty phase", whovever is/was the greenskeeper at Beechtree has done that in the past and for tournament play which was the best of both worlds

[THuckaby2]

An interesting test of the other side of this will come in San Francisco, as Harding re-opens in two weeks after a massive facelift the purpose of which was generally to improve the horrid conditions that existed there previously.  It's been pertty much acknowledged that this course possessed a suberb layout but was ruined by conditions before... The reception it gets now will be enlightening.

I've only seen it from the outside to date.  It does look VERY nice.

TH

[JDoyle]

Tom D,

I guess my point was that the majority of us have all traveled vast distances to play a superior course in terms of design value.  Would any of us do the same for conditioning?

My answer would be yes.  If a super at a course like Beechtree let it me known that the conditions were always going to be fast and firm - with a real ground game in play - I think it would be worth the effort.  Especially in a golf environment where half the time I need to fix my ballmark in the fairway!  It is way too wet and green out there.

It seems to me that Bandon / Pacific Dunes (not to mention Sand Hills) proved that "it you build it - they will come".  People will hunt down the superior designs and kill themselves to get their and play the course.  Could this happen with a different style (not poor, just different that wet)  of conditioning?

[THuckaby2]

JDoyle:

I think you make a great point... If I was told of a course here in the US that played REALLY screaming fast, like a UK links, I might seek it out regardless of any comment on the design... I'd have to guess many in here would also... And this has to be the most "design-centric" group anywhere....

Tell Joe Sixpack that there's a course with absolutely manicured fairways, like the greens at his home club, along with greens that stimp at 12, and he'd seek it out immediately....

Obviously Watson is right - in the end, good design carries the day.  But impeccable and/or different conditions hold a lot of weight for a lot of players also....

TH

[Lou_Duran]

This has been discussed here before with the concensus being that if one is to err, it is on the conditioning side.  A poorly designed, splendidly conditioned course is still a poor golf course.  This is regrettable.   A great design which lacks a commesurate maintenance meld is a tragedy.

Playing a firm and fast cow pasture is no fun at all.  On the other hand, trying to hit small targets surrounded by high rough and trash without being able to spin the ball is very frustrating.  For me, the course doesn't have to be world-class in terms of strategy, conditioning, or beauty to be enjoyable.  Very nice club courses like The Meadow Club which are maintained to allow the shots required by the design are among my favorites.  Having greens which require a well struck shot with spin but are not receptive are no more fun than green complexes with nice entries but kept much too soft to allow the bump and run.

What does Tom Doak mean when he says "I know I'm in the minority on this, but the rest of the world is only stuck where they are because they've never played Cypress Point or St. Andrews to see the other side."?
 
 

[THuckaby2]

I was wondering the same thing, Lou.  Each of you and I (and quite a few others here) must be able to see something the rest of the golf world doesn't... I'm just not sure what it is.

TH

[JDoyle]

Lou,

I think Tom was pointing out (IMHO) that most golfers never wake-up to the fact the golf course architecture is meaningful and important; and that it relates to strategy and creativity.  And the fact that it takes a round or two at PV, CP or TOC to jog most golfers out of their sleep walking.  Those of us who have clued in should feel privledged that we get it b/c most don't.

[THuckaby2]

JDoyle - thanks for the explanation.  Obviously such enlightenment can occur at many other places, no?

TH

[T_MacWood]

Design.

Highland links at Truro is both one of the worst conditioned courses I have run across and one of the most fun.

[THuckaby2]

That does sum up the question with great clarity, shivas.

I'd just venture to say the answer may not be as obvious as you think... I don't think one can underestimate the number of superficial idiot men (and women, given the example) who would gladly have Ms. Bernhardt.

The same goes for glammed-up golf courses, really....

TH

[TEPaul]

Design is more important. Condition isn't unimportant, just that design is more important.

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

That's a no-brainer -- design takes the cake in my book. You can work with improving conditions but places that are well-groomed are usually unlikely to do anything regarding their design flaws because most people believe the conditioning side is more important.

Jonathan -- you should have asked the more difficult question -- what's more important -- how a course "looks" or how it "plays?"

[Joe Hancock]

Owners perspective:

For love of the game: Design

To survive in an oversaturated market: Condition

Without putting numbers to it, conditions would win hands down if this question was honestly answered by the majority of the golfing public.

Since the question was directed at us GCA.com types....

design

Joe

[THuckaby2]

shivas:

We remain two peas in what would have to be a supersized pod.  I too went to WH (a) because my pal Dick Daley loves it so much, I had to see it; and (b) because I too had heard how firm and fast it was and that just sealed the deal.  Oh, I likely would have still gone even if I hadn't heard about the conditions, but still, that was a big reason to go there.

Remember too that you and I have to be way ahead of the curve when it comes to appreciating design... OK, I'm likely way behind the curve here in this discussion group, but I feel confident I appreciate design WAY more than the average schmoe.

And if even we go places for conditions, well... what do you think Joe Sixpack does?

Jonathan:  that's not a very hard question, not really.  How it plays is WAY more important to aficionados, but meaningless to Joe Sixpack, for whom looks are everything.  Why do you think so many US courses are so very green?

TH

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I do know what you mean. There was a little course in Mallow Ireland (Mallow G.C) on the side of a broad hill sloping down towards a beautiful river running through the town with some neat holes, some mundane holes, and some quirky holes even including a cross-over hole that was so firm and fast I could barely believe it. I played that course every morning alone starting before 6am and was back home before breakfast. It was one of the most memorable times of my golfing life because that course was so firm and fast! Talk about having to stare hard at all the topography of every hole and say to yourself--if I hit the ball over there maybe it might end up way over there where I'd like it too. Incredibly memorable for the exhiliration of watching the ball race all over that interesting ground! Ironically, the aerial game and flying a ball onto a green was not possible unless you wanted to find your ball about 100 yds past the green. I never could keep my tee shot on the first hole on the fairway as it sloped so much I'd hit something into the right rough and it would end up in the left rough. I generally had about 190 yds into the first green after hitting an iron off the tee and I finally figured out a pitching wedge was the right play by hitting it about 120 yds onto a hillside and watch it filter the rest of the way to the green.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Joe, Your on the money.

If your trying to feed your family operating a golf course you learn quicky how important conditioning is, and how few golfers appreciate design.

Every survey I've ever seen has conditioning at or near the top of the list of reasons people play where they do.

I have played some of the worlds finest courses, but I can still have fun on just about any course if the company is right.

Every wonder where golf would be without Joe sixpack or the schmoe who funds the majority of golf. Trust fund babys would probably like it because there would still be some quality private clubs they could join. But, with out these folks who are so often insulted here, would the Tom Doaks of the world have enough work to make a living? There's plenty of crappy golf out there, but the folks who drive the game with their $$$ have also funded some pretty good work, even if they wouldn't know it when they see it.

[Kevin_Reilly]

An interesting test of the other side of this will come in San Francisco, as Harding re-opens in two weeks after a massive facelift the purpose of which was generally to improve the horrid conditions that existed there previously.  It's been pertty much acknowledged that this course possessed a suberb layout but was ruined by conditions before... The reception it gets now will be enlightening.

I've only seen it from the outside to date.  It does look VERY nice.

TH

Unfortunately:

1.  the City has no money
2.  the course will be maintained by city workers
3.  the number of rounds played will be off the charts

The writing is on the wall for this one.  Will still be better maintained than the old Harding, but that's not a tough comparison to beat.

[Bill_McBride]

Kevin, have they changed the routing?  I never thought too much of the front nine routing but the back nine?  Wow!!!  I played a lot of rounds at Harding and it all came together on the back side.

[Mark_Fine]

A poorly conditioned course can ruin a great design but a well conditioned course can not assure a great design.  

Width for example, on a great course is an all but useless design feature if fairway and green conditions are kept soft.  Clever approaches are a waste if the ground game can not be employed because balls hit short of greens check up.  

Design features generally show themselves off the best when conditions are firm and fast.  Furthermore, unless you play a course often, one might not recognize just how good a design is if conditions are less than ideal.  

[Kevin_Reilly]

Kevin, have they changed the routing?  I never thought too much of the front nine routing but the back nine?  Wow!!!  I played a lot of rounds at Harding and it all came together on the back side.

Back nine is generally the same...biggest change is that they moved the 13th green back and to the left...toward the former rear tee on the 14th.  Extra yardage added to the 18th.

On the front it is generally the same routing but with extra yards added wherever possible.  The tee on the par 5 4th has been moved toward the 13th hole.

I'm looking forward to playing there as soon as I can.  I used to know Harding like the back of my hand I played there so much.

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas,

I am deeply disappointed by your earlier analogy.  I was under the impression that we were to do our best to keep discussions on this site on topic and less personal.  It is beneath us all for you to bring up the EX of our own Jr. Rajun Cajun as an example of the futility of putting lipstick on a pig.  Not that I have ever met Sandra (who the hell is she?), but I am sure that she has some very redeeming features.

Seriously though, we may have too low of an opinion of the average golfer out there.  Yes conditioning is very important to most, but I believe that design is what keeps bringing most people back.  Part of good design is the artful use of topography and aesthetics, and these together are what keeps bringing us back to the same courses.

At Ohio State, the Scarlet and Grey courses were similarly conditioned, yet the play on the Scarlet course was considerably greater.  My current home club is associated with four other private clubs at a nominally higher membership level, all operated similarly and in comparable playing conditions.  My home club has the best design and we get the most play by a wide margin from members of the other clubs.

I agree with Redanman completely.  You can defer maintenance a bit on a well designed course, specially in the fairways and roughs without major consequences over the short term.  In fact, if the superintendent skimps on water and fertilizer, some of us would like it better.

At great expense, an owner can dress up his pig all he wants, but it is still the same basic uncomely animal.  And I do believe that the average Joe can see the difference.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()