Can poor maintenance lesson the quality of a design?

[Ira Fishman]

Sam,
Isn’t fun fun?  Not sure there is fake fun but I hear what you are saying. 


We all love The Old Course, but if conditions were poor, it would definitely diminish the fun especially if you are a regular. 


I recall playing Narin one time and they had it soft lush and green.  It was very disappointing and I had a hard time looking past the conditions (as much as I wanted to).  It is hard to do so particularly if it is not a one time thing. 


On the other had, Routine maintenance such as aeration etc is a totally different matter and anyone who down grades a course for that doesn’t understand course maintenance.

Your comment about Nairn makes the distinction I was trying to make. Conditioning might affect our appreciation of playing a course on a given day, but it lessens only on the very small margin our ability to judge a good design. Of course Nairn (like any links course) plays better fast and firm, but it is quite clear that the quality of the design is quite high. Fortunately we played it on a raw windy day which only enhanced the experience (and increased my score), but I am very confident that I could see the quality even if played under the conditions you describe.

[Paul Jones]

What do you call a course that is not fun because the maintenance is over the top?  Oakmont was mentioned and I have played it a few times and never want to play it again unless they would slow the greens down.

[Mark_Fine]

Paul,
Remember that Fowns and Loeffler designed Oakmont to be a penal and very challenging golf course.  To some that’s fun, to others, not so much.  If the greens only rolled at 12, most members there would complain 


Smoothness of greens is more important to me than speed but that’s just me.  When making a three foot putt is pure luck because the green is so bumpy that is not fun.

[archie_struthers]

 


I think that conditions can greatly mitigate the enjoyment of the golf course. If it's firm and fast that's best for me . If pace of play is bad I'm hard pressed to enjoy the day , even if I have more time to appreciate the stuff we are looking at.  How many players other than many on this site would almost rather walk a course without playing first time to truly get a "feel" for design.




Most players are more impressed with the quality of the conditions and treatment by the staff for sure. Maybe even how good the food and BEVERAGES come out.  A couple of my friends love think Due Process is the best golf course in the country for this very reason.

    Just by the nature of being on this site are different in the value we attach to the architecture. So a Geoff Childs, Tim Martin or Mike Malone will appreciate nuance that many won't even see. It's why we read this stuff.  But,  I'd bet that all but the most fervent analyst won't be able to disassociate the conditions totally, it's hard for mere mortals, myself included.

[Mark_Fine]

Archie,
It is harder when it is on your own course when you see things you don’t like or had changed and have been altered back as a result of maintenance. 


I was at a new project the other day and one of the most important points I made to the owner is that we both need the Superintendent to buy in to the changes we are proposing.  If he or she doesn’t, we shouldn’t waste each other’s time and money making the changes or else you need to hire a new Superintendent who will embrace and maintain them. 

[Jim_Coleman]

    Of course poor playing conditions ruin the fun of playing an otherwise great course. But if it really is a great course (Doak 7+), I will pay the money to play it once to see why it’s great. I probably won’t go back, but I’ll be glad I saw why it was touted.

[Matt Wharton]

Craig's point is spot on, overwatering leads to poor turf quality and poor playing conditions that can overshadow the design. But well designed golf courses with lower budgets and scruffy conditions can be some of the most fun golf courses to play. Reynolds Park is a lower budgeted municipal facility in Winston-Salem, NC designed by Perry Maxwell. No matter how "rough around the edges" it may appear it, is a cool golf course with fun holes.


Southern Pines used to fit this same mold before the recent acquisition and renovation. I always enjoyed the bones and never cared about its appearance. In fact, I miss the old Southern Pines.

[DFarron]

Yes it can! Recently was in the Bay and played Contra Costa CC which is a wonderful layout, fun design and used to be firm and fast. It was way over watered, the was no roll after a drive and it was not possible to play a run up shot. Mud on your ball after every shot. Word is that they want the course “greener”. Such a shame ….
Next day played Corica South and what a difference ! Although the course was rather “scruffy “ it played very firm and fast and the greens were excellent. Night and day contrast from CC.


For me made a big difference in the level of enjoyment.

[Jim_Coleman]

   One doesn’t knowingly go to a poorly conditioned great coarse to “enjoy” it. One goes to experience it. With the proper attitude, one can then enjoy the experience.

[Mark_Fine]

Lots of interesting thoughts and opinions.  Most here don’t seem to think poor maintenance/conditions lesson their opinion of the quality of the architecture.  Most feel it might diminish the experience and the level of fun but doesn’t change their opinion of the architecture. 

I lean the same way but after a recent experience going back to one of my own projects, I might be wavering back the other way. 

Food for thought - If you think about the concept of “restoration”, it goes against the predominant opinion here that the architecture isn’t impacted due to changing or poor maintenance.  Isn’t one of the main reasons we do restorations to bring back the original or high point aspects of the architecture.  By definition that means it has changed.  Greens shrink often due to maintenance crews avoiding cutting into the collars during mowing. Green surrounds change with hazards often shifting away from the green surfaces again often due to mowing practices (maybe a triplex is used vs hand mowing to save time and money). Approaches get altered often narrowed once again due to mowing and maintenance practices.  Fairway lines move maybe to save money (less fairway, less chemicals, less cost, less maintenance).  Bunkers change, edges might collapse, sand lines change due to maintenance practices (maybe hand raking vs mechanical/sand pros). The list of maintenance impacts/alterations goes on and on.  All of these changes impact the architecture and they are all maintenance related. 

What I saw at my course was some of the changes we had made falling back toward the state I had found it and all because of maintenance practices.  The architecture was being impacted and not for the better    If a golfer didn’t know what was supposed to be there, how would one know that what they are seeing isn’t what the architect intended? 
What I am talking about regarding poor maintenance goes well beyond bumpy greens. 

[Brian Finn]

You make an excellent point in delineating between maintenance and conditioning.  For me (and seemingly most here), poor conditioning is generally not going to take away from our appreciation of the design, but poor maintenance (e.g. narrowing fairways, shrinking greens) very well may lessen our opinion on the design, because it can significantly impede our ability to actually see what are/were outstanding features. Like so much we discuss here, semantics matter.