[Tom Huckaby]

Brian - yep, that post from greenskeeper is very strong evidence - there are lots of others like it.  That guy is a fair example of the Joe Q. Public to whom I refer.

So obviously we do still have a long way to go.

But the fact that Rustic does remain packed is a very, very good sign.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

My so-far only trip to Pasatiempo was the Monday after KP-IV and the greens had been punched and heavily sanded just a few days before. In the morning round the sand was soaking wet and they were totally unputtable. In the afternoon they were just slow with punchmarks. I enjoyed my day there very much because tee to green Pasa is an exciting course.

Conversely, if I had played Stevinson Ranch with the greens in that condition I would have hated it. Frankly, a course has to be at the Pasatiempo/Cuscowilla/CPC/Tobacco Road level of design in order to be worth spending 4+ hours of my life playing when the greens can't be putted. And this is coming from a guy who can play 36 holes/day at a Doak 2 or 3 level course and feel like he's in hog heaven.

My point is, there's a certain minimum level of conditioning required before playing a course is any fun at all. Yes, it is possible for a course with a world-class design to overcome even horrendous conditions and offer some fun anyway (for that matter people enjoy walking the Old Course on Sundays when it's closed--the ultimate unplayable condition) but those exceptions don't contradict the basic rule that conditioning matters.

I think this discussion can lose sight of the difference between conditioning that matters for playability (puttable greens, sand in the bunkers, fairways that are either all or mostly grass and firm enough to play good iron shots) and conditioning that is either cosmetic (Augusta National class landscaping, wall-to-wall green, Tour-class bunker consistency) or overkill (greens Stimping 12+, perfectly edged bunkers, overwatered and manicured rough).

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - very, very well said.  That's what I've been trying to get at exactly - and you just summed it up far better and far more concisely than me.  Many thanks.

As for your last part, that's what I was trying to say in my post back to Paul where what I would do if I were made king of magazine rating systems.

Interesting also, your take here brings right back to mind the Harding Park example.  Before, you had a fantastic design that was border-line unplayable.  People played it because they had no choice; it was rarely any fun.  Now, conditions are pretty damn good, but dare I say the design quality if anything was lessened.

In which era is it more popular?  I refer one and all to all of the hubbub surrounding last fall's Amex tourney.

Interesting.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

Brent,
   I agree as well. That basic level of conditioning is important, and even vital, to playability. I absolutely love Renegade Mountain in Tennessee, mostly for the views as it sits on top of the mountain more or less. But the last time I played there the conditions were so bad that it was barely playable. I hope its improved.
    That said its the design that makes a course great. My take:
Good conditioning + great design = great course
Good conditioning + good design = good course
Good conditioning + poor design = poor course
Poor conditioning + good design = fun once in awhile...average course.

But terrible conditioning + great design = too bad  

[Brian Noser]

I like the edit better I was going to respond based on the las one before the edit. . I think your terrible one + good design for me = louisy course and also to bad.

I disagree with the good cond but bad design. But who am I? I like nice conditions.

[Andy Troeger]

Haha...I edited a couple times there I rapid succession.

I'm probably an odd one actually. If I don't like the holes and the overall design I won't like the course no matter what, and there a few "duds" that I actually really like  There's a lot of well kept up courses in housing developments that I probably could care less if I ever get to play.

As was already mentioned I think, as long as the greens on a course are kept up, I'll play winter rules as needed if it makes for a more enjoyable round on a well-designed course. Its not ideal, but still fun

[Brian Noser]

 The point I am trying to make is. I will not go out of my way to play a course in crappy shape no matter the design or a course that is just ok with great conditions. the point is given the choice I would chose the course with great conditions over a crappy maintained course.  

that is all I am saying on this I am done, off to play Rustic Canyon no matter what the conditions.

[Sean_A]

I agree with Brent.  There is a certain basic level of condition a course has to be in to bother playing.  There is also a breaking point where I may say the conditioning of the course is over the top.  I might rather take slower greens and brown grass for a reduced green fee.  I can be very happy on a Doak 2 if the price is right and the fourball is friendly.  Hell, I am a member of a course that may make 3 on the Doak scale.  

Of big name courses I played that were in poor condition, my first visit to Portstewart would take the prize.  Would/did I go back?  In a heartbeat.  The course is easily good enough to overlook conditioning issues.  It met the basic level of conditioning.  The greens were bumpy and rolling at 6.5.  Not ideal, but not condeming in and of itself.  

Ciao

Sean

[Adam_F_Collins]

I think we do have to include value here.

If you put a good design/poor conditioned/high fee against a poor designed/good conditioned/ high fee - then they're competitive.

But what about a good design/poor conditioned/low fee versus a poor designed/good conditioned/high fee?

To me, they're too often either good design/good condition/high fee, or poor design/poor conditioned/low fee.

How about a compromise?

What about a good design, a focus on the condition of the greens and letting the fairways go dormant and the tee grow shaggy, the clubhouse is little more than a clubhouse and the fees are low? How would a thoughtful design with rough conditions for $35 do against an run-o-the-mill high-ender in pristine condition for $100?

Is it me, or do we just very rarely see this model?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()