Isn't conditioning CRITICAL to evaluating a golf course?

[Peter Pallotta]

Peter -

I think we agree. I too would rather attend a good production of Shakespeare than a bad one.

But even bad ones are ok. I have, btw, attended a couple of the dreaded high school (severely abridged) productions of Shakespeare. They weren't awful. The oddities of Elizabethan English meant the kids slowed down. I heard things you don't sometimes hear when lines are spoken professionally.

Parallels with badly maintained but well designed courses?  

Bob

Bob - I was a bit hard on amateur/highschool productions -- as a former writer, I still want the words on the page spoken just so.

But there is a difference. There is simply no way, no matter how talented he is, that a young student can effectively and affectively act the "Tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech from Macbeth -- and it's not because of what he does/doesn't do, and not because he isn't trying his best, but simply because he is too young. No audience member (over 20) can truly accept and be made to feel the aura of world-weary despair and defeat and painful regret that Macbeth is expressing if Shakespeare's words are coming out of the mouth of an 18 year old -- no matter how well that 18 year old understands those sentiments intellectually and manages to convey them theoretically. It is the whole package -- aural and visual -- that we the audience needs.  In the case of a highschool student with Macbeth -- or, similarly, of a good 40 year old amateur holding his grown daughter Cordelia in his arms as the broken old King Lear  wails "Never, never, never, never, never" --  it is we the audience that intentionally has to supply all the emotional content to words we recognize as brilliant and moving in order for the scenes to work.

I believe the analogy is obvious

[Bart Bradley]

Got a message from my friend Tom Paul who saw this thread and we had a nice chat.

His point is that every course has an ideal mix of maintenance practices and these may not be the same.  That the conditions must be judged relative to the architecture present.  No one set of maintenance criteria applies to all courses, each course has different requirements to maximize its assets.

Very well said Tom.  I agree.

I started this thread to generate discussion.   I appreciate everyone's input.  I think there is a some truth to both "sides" of this argument.  We, as architecture mavens, can applaud the work of an architectural design even if the maintenance does not maximize the playability of that design.  But, if a wonderful feature or design choice is left irrelevant by the conditions, it is shameful and a waste and the ratings should reflect that failure.

Bart

[Tim Leahy]

Conditioning and weather are constantly changing. I would think an architect designs a course for the conditions for the majority of the golf season for the site. If a hole is designed into a wind condition that is present for a majority of the time and the course is played with no wind with firm & fast conditions that would change the evaluation of the course. Probably a good reason to play the course multiple times in multiiple conditions, hopefully favorable to how the course was designed.

[Jeff Bertch]

Conditioning is critical to the experience of playing a golf course. We can always evaluate how a course plays, as well as how we think the architect intended it to play. The "what if" factor always gets my imagination going. I played a top 10 course with "punched" greens once. While the experience was not as good, I could still see the contours and imagined how they would play stimp-ing at 12.

[Sean_A]

Got a message from my friend Tom Paul who saw this thread and we had a nice chat.

His point is that every course has an ideal mix of maintenance practices and these may not be the same.  That the conditions must be judged relative to the architecture present.  No one set of maintenance criteria applies to all courses, each course has different requirements to maximize its assets.

Very well said Tom.  I agree.

Dr B - I wrote the above back on page 1.  In a bit of a reverse role, I strongly suspect Dr Mac designed Cavendish to fit the wetter weather conditions of the Peak District.  I can't imagine if that course were properly f&f - many of the greens would be very difficult targets in those conditions. 

Ciao
Ciao   

[Garland Bayley]

No,  as students of architecture we should be able to see past conditioning .  It's all about the design .

+1

You can say a course is great without ever wanting to play there in its common presentation.

[Bob_Garvelink]

There is no doubt that conditioning plays a HUGE role when evaluating a golf course. There is nothing more annoying when playing a course that is in bad shape.  I have played a few courses on here that Ran has wrote reviews on and some have blown me away with outstanding course conditioning and architectural design and others were simply a disappointment for me mostly because of being in bad shape.  I have noticed that the older I get.......the more I become a snob when it comes to evaluating the condition of a golf course

Cheers

Bob

[Mac Plumart]

Bob...any further thoughts and/or more explanation on what you mean by "bad shape"?

[Paul Gray]

No,  as students of architecture we should be able to see past conditioning .  It's all about the design .

+1

You can say a course is great without ever wanting to play there in its common presentation.

+2, although as a caveat I do love the Tom Watson quote which Tom D made reference to. But then that's specifically in relation to a great course, rather than just a good one.

[Bob_Garvelink]

Bob...any further thoughts and/or more explanation on what you mean by "bad shape"?

Hey Mac,

My biggest complaint on any course are soft fairways and I have a problem with so called "quality" golf courses where my drive plugs an inch into the fairway.  When a course is designed to play fast and firm then the staff should do everything in their power to maintain that condition.  Additionally, I have high expectations for bunkers and I expect them to be cared for properly.  To many times I see no edging and some vegetation is allowed to grow out of control.  Furthermore, I want greens to roll pure and there is no excuse for "ruts" on a putting surface.  Tee boxes that have tees left on the ground over night also chaps my ass.  These conditions are not the norm for the majority of the courses I golf but every now and then I'm surprised at the impression that I'm left with when leaving a golf course.

Bob

[Thomas Dai]

Jug,

Firstly, a valid point, my apologies for not responding sooner.

I guess it's how we define 'receptive' and 'fair'. Is receptive and fair when a shot, whether well struck or semi-well struck lands and half-plugs in a green or leaves a small crater? Not to me. This is excessively soft, overly-receptive. Is receptive and fair when a well struck shot lands and bounces clean through the green without any kind of even minor indentation in the putting surface? This is probably, unless significantly downwind, overly firm - although in some areas of the globe it would probably be okay if the course lay-out permits you to play the ground game into and around the greens.

I would suggest, at the risk of daggers to the heart, that if lower handicappers want it soft/receptive then that is perhaps because it better suits their own personal game, ie is fair to them. There are many, many skilful lower handicappers who can play in any ground conditions and circumstances, there are also some low handicappers however, who are only low handicappers because they hit it miles (and high) but have poor course management, and as I said in my earlier post, "like the greens soft to help their rubbish shorts games" - they'd be in my 20% grouping rather than my 80%.
 
All the best

[Thomas Dai]

Apologies Jud
All the best

[Steve Curry]

Would the Mona Lisa be less of a treasure if the Louvre added disco balls or piped in punk music?

[Bart Bradley]

Would the Mona Lisa be less of a treasure if the Louvre added disco balls or piped in punk music?

Steve:

Would it be less of a treasure if it was smeared with black oil or torn?  Most people say that value is highly dependent on condition when it comes to things like art or antiques.

Bart

[Steve Curry]

Bart,

Fast and firm conditions do allow good architecture to shine but are managed and often rejected or subject to Mother Nature's whim.  As it is a matter of choice or chance and subject to change much as music or lighting should not reflect badly on the wonder of the design.

Cheers,
Steve

[Adam Clayman]

Bart, I don't know how many times in the past, on this website, someone made a comment about the conditions du jour of a course, only to have that sentiment erroneously regurgitated years later. Erroneous because the conditioning issue was only temporary.

It's a mistake to evaluate the course's gca on the day-you-played-it conditions. Because conditions are the easiest aspect to change. And sometimes it rains. (or is in drought) If the meld isn't just right, the day you played there, you have to adapt. Unless, of course, a course is designed to play optimally at a certain firmness, and the powers that be have mandated a different presentation. Then I think it's fair to justify your evaluation on that presentation. Case in point; Wild Horse. They've purposely softened their greens, and allowed grasses other than the originally planted fescue collars, slow down the bounces and rolls, core to that design's intent. They have been slipping on the GW modern list recently, because of this. Imo.



 

[Mac Plumart]

Unless, of course, a course is designed to play optimally at a certain firmness, and the powers that be have mandated a different presentation


BOOM!

[Doug Wright]

I'm with Archie (and I guess Tom Doak) on this. When I think of this question, I immediately think "Apache Stronghold." Of (I think) four plays, I've never played it when it's been in great shape and generally it's been pretty bad (dirt fairways et al). Yet the quality of the routing, the choices made architecturally in selecting greensites and the variety of challenges presented shine through.

Seems like poorly designed courses more often are the ones in poor shape condition-wise. Probably some correlation there.

[Jud_T]

Would Lost Dunes be more highly acclaimed if it were kept as F&F as it was designed to play?  Separately, it seems to me that one of the real draws at Bandon is the links surface that's very hard to come by on this side of the pond.

[Bob_Garvelink]

Would Lost Dunes be more highly acclaimed if it were kept as F&F as it was designed to play?  Separately, it seems to me that one of the real draws at Bandon is the links surface that's very hard to come by on this side of the pond.

I do think Lost Dunes would get more press if the course did play a little faster...great track but at times can play a bit soft.