How much do the course conditions vary for the pros?

[Adam_F_Collins]

And how much SHOULD it vary? I don't know about you, but the courses I play can vary A LOT, from one course/day to the next.

Is this aspect of the game, the variations of course conditions, something that should be celebrated and preserved as part of golf, or is it the ideal of golf course maintenance to make them all as similar as possible in terms of condiditons?

Is there an ideal rough height? An ideal green speed? An ideal fairway quality?, etc. etc.

Could a variation of conditions be something that is more celebrated and explored than it presently is at 'high-end' courses?

[Craig Sweet]

Adam...I think most supers would tell you they strive for consistancy.

However, in many small ways a course will vary from hour to hour. But you are talking about more noticible variations.

I think the "ideal maintinance meld" that Tom Paul promotes provides for that variation. Letting nature run its course thru the seasons will provide a nice variety. Soft conditions in the spring, firm and fast during the heat of summer, and a nice mixture in the fall...

[JESII]

My vote would be for variety so long as that variety was dictated by natural events like rain, wind etc...

[Adam_F_Collins]

I guess my question revolves around the fact that there seems to be an 'ideal' that different 'pro-rota' courses are maintaining from one to the next.

Greens are always fast. Grain is almost non-existent. Fairways are lush and green. Rough is thick and uniform. Courses are LONG. etc.

Would the tour scoring averages be lower, higher or the same if the courses varied more? What if one week the greens rolled an 8, the next, 15, the next 11? What if the course one day played to 7400 yds, the next 6400, the next 6850. then finished up at 7180?

Maybe it's just not possible.

But it seems that maintenance is one way of keeping the game challenging. And right now, it's so consistent - that it really takes a lot of the guessing out of it for the pros. And in a way, that seems like an advantage. Yet we worry so much about technology. Try a really slow green speed for two days of the Masters, and see what happens to scoring. Is that more to ask than all of the lengthening and re-designing?

[Scott Cannon]

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I have played in some tour qualifying the week of the tourney. The fairways were running a great deal faster than the normally do, a great deal. If you can get the ball going down the middle...wow, I dont hit the ball 300 normally. It can be said that faster fairways become narrower. Thats true, but you are hitting a much shorter club from the rough than you normally would, say a 9 instead a 5 or 6 iron.
You do see a change in the way the modern player swings at the ball based on fairway conditions. The fairways used to be taller, therefore players "swept" the ball more. Now they are much steeper.
 I also think that the game for the majority of us would become easier with a little higher fairway cut. I know the pros would be a bit troubled by it because it would cause mini flyers and slow down the distances their tee shots go.if you mixed that with a little firmer greens, you might have a good combo.
To your other question about if the uniformity of the rota courses changed, would the player struggle. Yes. They are good enough that they would figure it out, and bitch and moan. I would also be cool if the bunkers on a particular course were ununiform...haha. Just like our home tracks!

[Adam_F_Collins]

Well that's the thing. We talk about creating a tournament ball, but bemoan the fact that then the tour players would truly be playing "a different game". But haven't they been doing that for years?

Most golfers face conditions which vary a great deal from one day to the next, one course to the next. But the pro game spends a tremendous amount of money and effort to eliminate those variations...

And more and more average golfers begin to think that it is the 'ideal'; that a 'great' golf course has perfect, constant conditions - this consistency may be as much to blame (for the rising cost of the game and the increasing separation between the club players and the pros) as the maintenance itself.

It goes hand-in-hand with the quest for the elimination of luck. It's bad news.

[Scott Cannon]

I remember Brad Faxon writing an article about tour bunkers being too good, too consistent.
He wrote specifically about the inside fairway bunker on the 18th at Jacks murfield. He said it was so good, the lies so perfect, that players were actually aiming for it, rather than risking the creek on the left. That to me is crazy!
Adam, your on to something, give Fincham a call

[Anthony_Nysse]

I remember when the PGA was at Valhalla in 2000-The players were hitting their second shot towards the greenside bunker on the Par 5 10th to avoid being in the rough-The said the sand wasn't a penalty!

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI,SC

[Scott Cannon]

Tony,
You must hear it all the time from your members...what up with our bunkers???
Well sir, they ARE hazards...haha

[Anthony_Nysse]

Scott-
  I actually got into a bit of a dispute with our pro concerning this-He was upset cause he was playing with some members and his ball happened to land into foot print from a prior golfer, but blamed it on poor grooming....there just happened to be a USGA rules book onthe desk and I told him to read the part about how hazards are bunkers!!!

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Tom_Doak]

The Tour's goal is that the conditions [sand quality, speed of greens, etc.] are exactly the same from one week to the next.

That's their goal because THAT IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS WANT.  The Tour is run by the players and for the players, and the players don't want to have to get to every tournament on Monday to figure out the conditions from one week to the next ... they want to be able to show up on Tuesday afternoon and not be at a disadvantage.  They do not want to work seven days a week.

They have gotten to the point where they probably do have comparable conditions probably 35-40 weeks a year.  That is why they have such trouble at the "other" events ... Masters, U.S. Open, Kapalua, etc.  They seem to have trouble on some of the shorter courses with tilted greens, like Westchester, because they are having trouble adjusting to the slower green speeds which are required because there is too much tilt to set them at 11 1/2.

Brad Faxon is in the minority, because he thinks he would be better off if other players had to adjust.  He can call Tim Finchem, and I'm sure he has ... but Finchem knows which side the majority is on, and he's on their side, because they write his check.

[Scott Cannon]

Beautiful!
I was a club pro for 15 years and would NEVER say something like that to the crew.
I can remember when or what publication, but the was a small push for no rakes, just reforming the sand with you shoes.
Doesn't PV do that. Who's played PV? Can yall add anything

[Anthony_Nysse]

I was smiling from ear to ear when I gave him the USGA book!!  
  PV doesn't have rakes, neither does Friar's Head....

Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Long Cove Club
HHI, SC

[Scott Cannon]

The Tour's goal is that the conditions [sand quality, speed of greens, etc.] are exactly the same from one week to the next.

That's their goal because THAT IS WHAT THE MAJORITY OF PLAYERS WANT.  The Tour is run by the players and for the players, and the players don't want to have to get to every tournament on Monday to figure out the conditions from one week to the next ... they want to be able to show up on Tuesday afternoon and not be at a disadvantage.  They do not want to work seven days a week.

They have gotten to the point where they probably do have comparable conditions probably 35-40 weeks a year.  That is why they have such trouble at the "other" events ... Masters, U.S. Open, Kapalua, etc.  They seem to have trouble on some of the shorter courses with tilted greens, like Westchester, because they are having trouble adjusting to the slower green speeds which are required because there is too much tilt to set them at 11 1/2.

Brad Faxon is in the minority, because he thinks he would be better off if other players had to adjust.  He can call Tim Finchem, and I'm sure he has ... but Finchem knows which side the majority is on, and he's on their side, because they write his check.

I understand how it works. They also want courses like Firestone and Champions. What I was saying, and Brad, is to aim at a hazard is not the best thing for the game...is it? Would it be better to eliminate greenside bunkering, so the rough would be more penal?
And to your point about working 7 days a week, would they or would they end up paying more of a price for hitting it into a hazard?

[Dave Bourgeois]

I for one love watching the different events like Kapalua, The Open, US Open, and Westchester because of the different conditions.  Westchester is especially interesting because the scores seem to be relatively high while the course plays less than 6,900 yards.