Conditioning and design differ

[archie_struthers]

 


I know it's a simple concept but often underappreciated. Here on GCA we strive to understand the architecture of courses we like and don't like. The why is personal but lots of us appreciate the strategies and design intent of the architects. Don't confuse conditioning for design intent.


Might have been TEP that first coined the term "maintenance meld" here on the site and he often postulated as to it's importance in the enjoyment of our favorites. However when you observe or play a golf course one must remember that all budgets aren't equal and not all superintendents are Dick Bator.


Look to the design, imagine the golf course in it's best possible light when critiquing, and enjoy the day!

[Sean_A]

Why should we imagine a course in its best possible light when critiquing?

I am one to believe that architecture, conditioning and presentation are intimately linked, maybe so much that a clear distinction is impossible.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
Amen!  But that doesn’t mean one can’t complain about how a design is presented.  It is always a little nerve wracking for me to go back to a course I worked on to see how it is being maintained/taken care of. 
Mark

[archie_struthers]

 


Sean imagine a hole that is designed to roll and accentuate the ground game that is so wet that the original intent is lost. Likewise if you want to reign in the hitters a little design fairways that run out in spots to make sure accuracy is a factor not just length. If the budget doesn't suffice or the superintendent is instructed to keep it green and lush throw all that in the trash.


I'm with you Mark, best of luck in getting the clients to buy in!

[Paul Rudovsky]

Me thinks evaluating a golf course without considering how it its maintained is like evaluating students on their IQ and not how they perform in regular tests...the diligent hard working "plodder" would not do well under those rules...and the genius who is lazy, disorganized or both gets ahead.  But what rules would you sue if you were hiring someone.


By the same token, go play a course with great bones and bad conditions (soft and wet...and grass on fairways and greens way tooling, etc etc) ...and then a good (but certainly not great) course that is firm and fast and in immaculate condition.  Then say which one of these two courses you want to play for 10 straight days.



Hate to say it, but the architect is just a piece of the puzzle...a very important piece but just a piece.  Frankly I am of the belief that site selection is more important than the architect, and in many cases the architect is presented with a site...they do not chose the site.  Of course, the really great ones will turn down an offer to design a course on a site that is not worthy.


Golf courses are designed to be enjoyed for many decades and even centuries...and maintenance is a crucial part of that puzzle.  Bad maintenance can have a huge impact.  I can recall playing Shinnecock in the 1970's where one caught flyers on almost every shot hit from the fairways and the greens probably stimped around 4-5 max.  No question you could see it had "great bones" but they were well hidden.  The Walker Cup in 1977 and US open in 1986 changed all that but  maintenance has a huge impact.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mark,


While it might put all the architects here in an uncomfortable position of criticizing superintendents, I think a quick list by each of us about the most typical maintenance changes that do affect our designs might be in order, and informative.


For me, I see so many supers stop cutting the approach to the green as fw.  I get it, its probably (always) a budget issue.  But, why design a run up approach for strategy or convenient use by lesser players to reach the green only to have it mowed out of the design?  This budget shortcut truly changes playability.


Similarly, I see many who eliminate any sort of chipping area cuts because they are too much bother to mow, which reduces design quality, IMHO.


Usually (not always) the first super, who was there at creation keeps the original design intent because you've discussed it with them.  But, once they change out, there is no ownership of design that the original super had, and no discussion of why it was that way, and then changes often start happening.

[archie_struthers]

 


Paul, methinks you should re-consider your post. We aren't raters in this discussion or potential customers or members. We are talking design. Don't cut Pine Valley for a few months and it would be a mess. Yet would it devalue the brilliant design by Crump?

[Tom_Doak]

Paul, methinks you should re-consider your post. We aren't raters in this discussion or potential customers or members. We are talking design. Don't cut Pine Valley for a few months and it would be a mess. Yet would it devalue the brilliant design by Crump?

Archie:


Yes, you are talking about the difference between a rater and a real architectural critic.


There are very few of the latter, who just look at what was created, and don't judge it by how it suited their game, or what they think a great course should look like.

[Sean_A]

Paul, methinks you should re-consider your post. We aren't raters in this discussion or potential customers or members. We are talking design. Don't cut Pine Valley for a few months and it would be a mess. Yet would it devalue the brilliant design by Crump?

Just as different soils and turf encourage different design concepts, so too does conditioning/presentation effect design.  As I say, one cannot be completely divorced from the other.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

In my little corner of the golf world, it’s striking how often a course that’s pedestrian and plodding in design is maintained with a (matching) lack of imagination and insight, while the few courses that intrigue and delight (architecturally) have the suitably and seasonally-appropriate firm and dry and short-grassed conditions that elevate a quality design (and increase the playing pleasure) even further.
Maybe just a coincidence, and I’m sure you folks can cite many exceptions — but it sure seems true to me, more often than not.

[Craig Sweet]

Not one mention of the membership and the role they play in dictating the daily maintinence of the course?

[Craig Sweet]

Jeff, you are mistaken if you think the Super. has any ownership over anything.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Paul, methinks you should re-consider your post. We aren't raters in this discussion or potential customers or members. We are talking design. Don't cut Pine Valley for a few months and it would be a mess. Yet would it devalue the brilliant design by Crump?

Archie.  Hear what you are saying and could not disagree more.  You may be talking design but I am talking golf courses, and what makes them great or less than that.  As I said in my prior post one could see the great bones at Shinnecock in the 70's...and I have seen great bones in other examples far more recently.  Design/architecture is just part of what makes a course great.  And I refer you back to my question in para 2 of my initial post.  Furthermore, all the various factors in making a course good bad or whatever influence each other.  No question that architecture can influence the ability to maintain.


Yes, architecture is a major factor...but I strongly believe it is just part of the puzzle.  I would suggest to you that looking at the golf course is a bigger view than looking at its design.  I would also agree in a nanosecond that most architects are better trained and more "skilled/knowledgeable" than most raters.  But that is not the question.  Conditioning and design certainly differ...but they do impact each other...and both impact the greatness (or lack thereof) of the golf course.


Best
Paul

[Paul Rudovsky]

Archie--


Regarding your question about PVGC...yes it would still be a great Crump design, but it may not be a great golf course.  I think this site if Golf Club Atlas...not Golf Architecture Atlas.  Again that is not meant to minimize the importance  of that architect. ust to point out that that is not the only factor (and in  my mind not the most important). 


Put another way, great architecture may be necessary for a great course but I cannot imagine a situation where it is sufficient.

Lastly...Tom, these two spots are meant to reply to your comment as well.


Best
Paul

[archie_struthers]

 


Paul again we aren't talking which course is better   that wasn't my postulate


Just that people confuse conditioning and a host of other factors when comparing architecture...my post was about this confusion.
Even the spectacular design of Crump needed polish when I first started working there. A benevolent dictator and a great superintendent polished the diamond.



p.s. to all you hard working superintendents out there who have to work with some stubborn or uneducated "bosses" keep up the good work for they know not what they do

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff, you are mistaken if you think the Super. has any ownership over anything.

Well, I just got done writing to and speaking with an out of town owner about one of these situations, so its both on my mind and plausible to me.  Lots of different golf course ownership models, not every course is a club with a board watching over and dictating everything, is it?  Or, what other instances can you cite of where a super is basically not deferred to as the expert in maintenance?  Just wondering.

[Paul Rudovsky]

Paul again we aren't talking which course is better   that wasn't my postulate


Just that people confuse conditioning and a host of other factors when comparing architecture...my post was about this confusion.
Even the spectacular design of Crump needed polish when I first started working there. A benevolent dictator and a great superintendent polished the diamond.




Totally agree we are talking different questions, but I do not think it is caused by confusion.  I think most people are more interested in the question of which course is better...and interestingly, the lack of definition regarding the criteria that define greatness etc. is the biggest fault with most ratings.  But that said, architectural design by itself is a very appropriate question

[Craig Sweet]

Jeff, you are mistaken if you think the Super. has any ownership over anything.

Well, I just got done writing to and speaking with an out of town owner about one of these situations, so its both on my mind and plausible to me.  Lots of different golf course ownership models, not every course is a club with a board watching over and dictating everything, is it?  Or, what other instances can you cite of where a super is basically not deferred to as the expert in maintenance?  Just wondering.

Jeff....Superintendents are the experts until they aren't...regardless of ownership model.  You and I have both seen it....An owner plays a Top 50 course and comes home demanding the Super make his course like that.  A bunker here, faster greens there, new mow lines.....

[archie_struthers]

 




Craig rare is the club /course where the stars are all in alignment. Most supers are the hardest working guys at the course, and then there are the chef's lol

[SL_Solow]

I always enjoyed Tom Watson's statement to the effect that if a course has to be in great condition to be played effectively then the design concept is flawed.  I have spent a lot of time working with superintendents and I have the greatest respect for their work.  I agree that conditioning can have a significant impact on how a course plays.  But great conditioning won't save a nondescript design and it takes some real substandard maintenance to "ruin" a well thought out course.  Finally, I endorse the view that many  maintenance issues are caused by members/owners who interfere with the experts they hire to maintain their courses or who create demands that are inconsistent with their budgets.

[Sean_A]

SL

Paul and I didn’t claim great conditioning saves a non descript course. We both think that in the main we would rather play a good course in good nick compared to a great course in OK nick. Importantly, for me anyway, if the presentation is right it's difficult for the conditioning to take away much from the design.

Design = what is in the ground

Presentation = the overall look of a course over longer periods of time.

Conditioning = the daily effect of green keeping.

To me, issues such as trees, grass lines and bunker shape are presentation issues which go beyond daily conditioning, but aren't really the architecture because these features change. I think of architecture as static, as in the intent of the design. Tree growth, green shrinkage etc is the result of maintenance non-action or poor action, which eventually presents the course in a different way to the intent of the architecture. Sure, if the greens remain shrunk and trees growing etc for a long time, the architecture can be said to have altered leaving what is often called the bones of a design.

However, like Paul, when I play a course I am interested in the course as a whole, not merely the architecture. I have seen some great designs mucked up very badly to the point where saying the bones are great makes no difference when one is handing over the green fee.

Ciao

[Paul Rudovsky]

Sean--


Superbly put.  And the line between architecture and maintenance can be very blurred.  If an architect puts in small young trees that grow over time and are not trimmed or eliminated when they get too think and dense...that becomes a "shared" responsibility.  Also...to what degree is the architect responsible for site selection?  In many cases they had nothing to do w site selection...but then again, they accepted the assignment...


Best
Paul 

[Jim Sherma]

Nothing neuters architectural intent like a course that is kept too soft through over-watering. When the ball consistently stops where it lands it almost doesn't matter what the architecture is because a decent player is playing point to point. The same course if firm can become a very interesting test of angles and shot making. Having a superintendent that does not understand the difference between a good playing surface and growing grass is a sad state of affairs. I can mostly forgive sloppy mowing lines and low dollar maintenance - soft mushy turf that is not the result of rain not so much.

[archie_struthers]

 


Back to the premise....so cool to see the original idea and design in its best condition. But like “feel” condition can fool you !

[ward peyronnin]

A critical point is what is it that makes a course "great"? if it is solely the design that is a different thing than the cumulative course values. I side with Sean that a great design is just that and more must be considered. I can and do overlook poor turf and detailing around the margins and other things but some maintenance blunders are simply too impactful

But If conditioning is so divorced  from design than how do you explain George Bahto and others designing a course and specifying an upper stimp limit for cutting greens. How do you explain what a difference the mowing lines make at courses like Shinnecock? How does one reconcile the difference restoring the original bunker depth by 6 feet or more makes to a now much better "design" at Old Town Club?
It is not just about wet turf