Are we evangelists?

[Sean_A]

ATB

I too prefer Greensomes and it makes more sense unless playing a 2ball club.  Trying to play 4somes on a normal course is a waste of time unless you are out at a weird time.  That said, I like 4somes if playing 36 on a nice day with a good break between games. Would I try to convince others to to give this a go unless demanded by the club...not likely.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

ATB

I too prefer Greensomes and it makes more sense unless playing a 2ball club.  Trying to play 4somes on a normal course is a waste of time unless you are out at a weird time.  That said, I like 4somes if playing 36 on a nice day with a good break between games. Would I try to convince others to to give this a go unless demanded by the club...not likely.

Ciao

Sean


You being an old fart like me, if you can't play a 4-ball in 3 1/2 hours, why not take up bowls?  Greensomes is just a way to pretend you are not growing old.....


oaic

[Tim Martin]

I think the biggest disconnect is that most of the golfers out there cannot separate conditioning from quality of the architecture. To most players if it’s well conditioned then it’s a good golf course. It becomes a tough sell when this is the case.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think the biggest disconnect is that most of the golfers out there cannot separate conditioning from quality of the architecture. To most players if it’s well conditioned then it’s a good golf course. It becomes a tough sell when this is the case.

That's a simpler/better way of saying what I said above, yeah. I think part of being an "evangelist" in the sense of this topic is talking about how conditioning and architecture are two different things.

[Peter Pallotta]

And the trouble, of course, is that they *aren't* different things, at least not necessarily.
Many of us here are so busy promoting 'tan' and denigrating 'green' that we don't often enough notice that the 'conditioning' at many of our most highly praised courses is absolutely superb -- and that this conditioning (and 'maintenance') is part & parcel of the architecture itself: one of the main reasons those courses look and play the way they do.
From what I can tell, at courses like Pinehurst and Pacific and Sand Valley and NGLA etc etc, the turf is perfect, and the bunkers/hazards are masterfully taken care of, and the greens run smooth and true, and the mowing/rough lines are artfully conceived, and the overall aesthetic is beautifully maintained -- and each of those elements both highlight the architecture and enhance playability.
In short: maybe we're trying to convert the great unwashed under false pretenses, ie trying to make them focus on the 'architecture' instead of the 'conditioning' while we ourselves lavish praise on immaculately conditioned courses.
In the very old religious days, they might've called us (well, at least *me*) 'hypocrites', so busy taking the speck out of our brother's eye that we miss the beam in our own...

[Tim Martin]

And the trouble, of course, is that they *aren't* different things, at least not necessarily.
Many of us here are so busy promoting 'tan' and denigrating 'green' that we don't often enough notice that the 'conditioning' at many of our most highly praised courses is absolutely superb -- and that this conditioning (and 'maintenance') is part & parcel of the architecture itself: one of the main reasons those courses look and play the way they do.
From what I can tell, at courses like Pinehurst and Pacific and Sand Valley and NGLA etc etc, the turf is perfect, and the bunkers/hazards are masterfully taken care of, and the greens run smooth and true, and the mowing/rough lines are artfully conceived, and the overall aesthetic is beautifully maintained -- and each of those elements both highlight the architecture and enhance playability.
In short: maybe we're trying to convert the great unwashed under false pretenses, ie trying to make them focus on the 'architecture' instead of the 'conditioning' while we ourselves lavish praise on immaculately conditioned courses.
In the very old religious days, they might've called us (well, at least *me*) 'hypocrites', so busy taking the speck out of our brother's eye that we miss the beam in our own...

"The turf is perfect" at scads of courses where the architecture is terrible also so they are different things as it relates to this topic. I'm not talking about the courses you referenced above as that seems to me to be a straw man argument. It's like putting lipstick on a pig-you can pretty them up but you can't disguise the true nature of the product.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - yes, I understand: in years past I played many a course that was all and nothing but 'conditioning'.  But my point was that, since there are also many wonderful golf courses that are in great condition and where those conditions/maintenance practices actually highlight & enhance the 'architecture', the discussion (with would-be disciples) can sometimes be more nuanced. I mean:
I'm as much of a sucker for 'conditioning' as the next guy, and except with very poor golf course am not sure I know when or where I'm being fooled by it.
P