[THuckaby2]

Fair enough, Jerry.  Please understand I am not saying that new courses deserve NO consideration... just that some of the old courses do have certain positives that only come over time, and not to count such to me is... well...  different than how I would assess courses.  Yes, the magazines could do this better, particularly GD, but not to count it at all... well... that to me is worse than omitting it.

But again, as I say, there are many ways to look at this, all valid.

TH

[Jeff Goldman]

If you want to test "course design" shouldn't you look at the land as a blank slate and ask whether the course that resulted could have been bettered?  That is, how could the design that exists at the site it was on have been improved?  That's not really comparing apples to oranges, but the apple that was grown to how it could have been done better.  Moreover, it has at least some objective criteria - this or that alternative would have resulted in better drainage etc., or a better walking course - along with subjective criteria (this part of the parking lot actually could have been a great green site).  This is a topic discussed many times here (couldn't someone else have made a better course out of the land at Bay Harbor?).

Jeff Goldman

[Mark_Fine]

How can you not include conditioning as part of the design    Just think if Pinehurst #2 had rough growing all around the greens instead of chipping areas and the fairways were reduced to 25-30 yards and they started planting trees! Would that impact the design of the golf course?  I think it might  

We all talk about what they've done to Augusta National as far as growing rough and planting trees!  Guys this is all part of conditioning!
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

Shouldn't those examples fall under "shot values" or some other category indicating "strategic interest"?

Personally, I believe that many raters look at the "conditioning" issue, and are looking for lush, green playing surfaces, through the green.  If their ball is sitting up smiling at them on the fairway, they think the conditioning is "awesome".  

I'll mark down a course on conditioning for three reasons;

1) If there are signs of neglect to the point where it detracts from the design.  I know you grew up on public courses, Mark, like I did, so my tolerance level is REALLY high here, especially on a single visit.  Personally, I LOVE to see some browns, yellows, and purples out there.

2) If it's clear that no attempt at "maintenance meld" with the type of architecture is made.  When I see balls "back up" in the fairways in the middle of a dry summer on a classic course, for instance, I have to wonder where the priorities and understanding are.

3) When it's clear that there is no tree management program in place.  

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
I don't put those things I mentioned under shot values.  Those things are all related as to how the golf course is kept and maintained.  To me that is the definition of "conditioning".  These factors impact shot values as you say, but that impact is a "symptom" of the problem.  The problem itself, is the conditioning!

One more example - If an approach is kept soft, that will often impact shot values correct?  The reason shot values are impacted is because of the condition of the approach.  That is where the problem lies!  

Condition plays a major role in the design and playability of a golf course and it is far more than just the color and lushness of the grass.  
Mark

[Jerry Kluger]

Conditioning can often be eye candy more than a factor which should be considered in evaluating a golf course.  The budget of an elite private club can dramatically improve the condition of a course but should that make it a better course.  Is Bethpage a better course now because of its conditioning or because of the restoration of the design; I think the latter.  The top rated courses are those with big operating budgets which gives them the chance to hire the best greenskeepers and the ability to spend whatever is necessary to make a course great.  Some courses have been what I call over conditioned.  Look what has happened to Pinehurst #2 and the crowned greens which were not Ross' intent but a result of conditioning.  This is not to say that chipping areas should not be preserved but in many instances the over conditioning results in the loss of bunkers and the shrinking of greens ala Augusta Country Club.  I think that more emphasis should be placed on the design of the course and the challenges and options it presents when one plays it than conditioning.  Relative to that I wonder if a design which requires you to play the course more than once to understand how to play it is better or worse than one which is more recognizable as to course strategy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()