News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.

Pages: [1]   Go Down

Aaron Katz

The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« on: September 19, 2006, 07:05:55 PM »
I have been doing some thinking in the last hour regarding the topic of course ratings.  One of the biggest ratings factors for Golf Digest -- and I assume many other publications -- is "conditioning."  Indeed, when I was reading course reviews on golfonline.com a moment ago, I was struck by how many high reviews made sure to mention the "wonderful conditioning."  

It seems to me that the word "conditioning" or "condition" is very different from the word "conditions."  On this board, we praise a golf course for having good playing conditions -- firm and fast, closely mown shipping areas, etc. -- whereas most people pay attention to "conditioning" -- consistent greenness and fullness to the grass, greens smooth as glass, etc.  

The confusion between optimum playing conditions and impeccable conditioning has serious consequences, because the two are often incompatible.  How often has a course looked good to the eye only to play like a swamp, with drivers rolling backwards and wedges making crater sized pitch marks due to over-irrigation?  

Do you think that a concerted effort by the leading golf publications to focus on playing conditions instead of course conditioning might make a dent in the American public's desire for "emerald green golf courses?"  Or am I engaging in meaningless semantics here?
Logged

Adam Clayman

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2006, 07:56:02 PM »
Aaron- The Augusta syndrome is only being perpetuated, not spearheaded, by golf publications.

With 25 million US golfers, they appear to be marketing to the 20 million who play 4-5 times a year.

Not us.
Logged
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Steve Burrows

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2006, 08:26:41 PM »
I can appreciate the semantic difference that you are establishing here between "conditions" and "conditioning," but the truth of the matter is that maintaining firm and fast greens, fairways, etc, takes as much, if not more, time and money and effort as does maintaining a soft, lush, green golf course.  Conditions are a function of conditioning.  

For example, keeping a green firm and fast, as well as ALIVE (and trying to maintain that balance during the middle of the summer), may require double cutting and/or rolling in the morning and then, in the afternoon, is exhausting for the guy out there running around the course with a hose, hand-watering hot spots while still keeping water away from those areas that are fine.  18 holes, probably a putting green or two, a nursery, and maybe additional greens, all while trying not to interrupt play.  It's tough.
Logged
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Aaron Katz

Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2006, 10:44:20 PM »
That seems right, Steve.  But assume a course with a moderate budget.  They can't have the Augusta "look" -- green, manicured, etc. -- without indiscriminately overwatering.  But if they just leave the course a bit more alone -- let the grass get crusty on the fairways, leave the greens slightly longer but let them get a bit thirsty, use bermuda and fescue grasses if possible, don't worry about dead patches here and there -- they can get a course that looks real scruffy but plays pretty darn good.  

Back when I lived in Arizona, I'd play at the Randolph Municipal complex, which has 36 holes.  The Dell Urich course gets much firmer, with a lot of dead spots in the fairways during May through September/October, brown spots on the greens, etc.  Basically the fairways at times play like hard-packed dirt.  Dust flies when one takes a divot and the ball takes nice hard bounces if struck properly.  It is great fun and the ball is eminently playable as it lies.  On the other hand, the North course at the complex is always far lusher and greener.  It would look much better on television.  My sense is that there are at least twice as many sprinkler heads on the North course than there are on Dell Urich.  The course usually plays soft and fairly slow.  

Almost every person at that complex -- from the pro shop to the players -- say how the North course is in "better condition."  Well, that might be true if one is to compare golf courses to front lawns.  But what if we convinced people to change the topic to "playing conditions."  I'd ask the guys at the pro shop what course's fairways and greens present more interesting bounces and challenges, all things being equal.  I think most would say that the Dell Urich course does.

I understand that magazines are trumping the ultra-green Augusta look (which can't be achieved without sacrificing Augusta type playing conditions at most courses).  I just wonder whether the magazines could pave the way in the other direction if they talked about how a course played, rather than looked.  I really think that, in the beginning, the raters had to have been focusing on the courses playing conditions rather than how well it was manicured, even if that meant that the fairways were dead bermuda.
« Last Edit: September 19, 2006, 10:46:00 PM by Aaron Katz »
Logged

Steve Burrows

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2006, 06:10:05 AM »
Aaron,

I'm all for lowering our standards/expectations a bit for the level of golf course conditioning here in the states (and probably elsewhere), in favor of a a course that may be a little rough around the edges, but still imminently playable.  I have actually been the guy running around the course with a hose in my example, so I wouldn't wish that on anyone.  

But alas, to change playing conditions to what you suggest, while admirable, would seem to require not just a change in the level of maintenance, but a shift in the attitudes of millions of golfers.  This is a tough sell in the short run, but as you mention, probably worth the battle.
Logged
...to admit my mistakes most frankly, or to say simply what I believe to be necessary for the defense of what I have written, without introducing the explanation of any new matter so as to avoid engaging myself in endless discussion from one topic to another.     
               -Rene Descartes

Doug Ralston

Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2006, 08:08:58 AM »
But not all courses can reasonably play 'firm and fast'. If you have heavily gaurded greens, or greens seperated from fairways, you simply cannot run the ball up. High golf is gonna require soft greens and 'good lies' in fairways. And more courses are designed for that than run-ups. Reality intrudes again.

Sadly, most people are not even getting to try F&F golf. They learn to hit the ball high, spin it, and fire darts at thye pins. I have only played run-up golf a few times, myself. I wish I had more exposure to it. But these parts are mostly 'verdant'. I still have fun though ........ sorry.

Doug
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2006, 08:30:04 AM »
"Conditions" is the quality of the playing surfaces.

"Conditioning" is the degree of maintainance applied to the above.
Logged

Tom_Doak

  • Total Karma: 19
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2006, 08:38:54 AM »
Actually I have always used the word "conditions" to include the effect of the weather on play.

That preference Americans have for green and soft conditioning is not just a national preference or accident.  There is a multi-billion-dollar "green industry" promoting excessive golf course maintenance to superintendents, green chairmen, and golfers at large.  Just go to the GCSAA convention any winter and see for yourself.

Firm and fast has no chance, because nobody is making any money out of the deal.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2006, 08:39:34 AM by Tom_Doak »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2006, 08:50:40 AM »
Quote from: Tom_Doak on September 20, 2006, 08:38:54 AM
Actually I have always used the word "conditions" to include the effect of the weather on play.

That preference Americans have for green and soft conditioning is not just a national preference or accident.  There is a multi-billion-dollar "green industry" promoting excessive golf course maintenance to superintendents, green chairmen, and golfers at large.  Just go to the GCSAA convention any winter and see for yourself.

Firm and fast has no chance, because nobody is making any money out of the deal.

Sadly, that's a good point.

But, in the ultimate, doesn't the membeship and/or the superintendent determine the conditions and the degree of conditioning on the golf course.

It's not like the salesmen walk in with a gun on their hip.
Logged

Peter Galea

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2006, 08:53:41 AM »
Quote from: Tom_Doak on September 20, 2006, 08:38:54 AM
Actually I have always used the word "conditions" to include the effect of the weather on play.

That preference Americans have for green and soft conditioning is not just a national preference or accident.  There is a multi-billion-dollar "green industry" promoting excessive golf course maintenance to superintendents, green chairmen, and golfers at large.  Just go to the GCSAA convention any winter and see for yourself.

Firm and fast has no chance, because nobody is making any money out of the deal.

Firm and fast has a chance. I do it whenever weather allows. Players love it.
Logged
"chief sherpa"

Chris Kane

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2006, 08:54:17 AM »
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 20, 2006, 08:50:40 AM
Sadly, that's a good point.

But, in the ultimate, doesn't the membeship and/or the superintendent determine the conditions and the degree of conditioning on the golf course.

It's not like the salesmen walk in with a gun on their hip.[/b]

Patrick, isn't the demand of the membership an aggregation of the influences around them?  Not only is it the salesmen, its the other courses in the neighbourhood, the courses on television, and what is published in magazines.
Logged

Mike Nuzzo

  • Total Karma: 16
Re:The difference between "conditioning" and "conditions"
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2006, 10:26:06 PM »
Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on September 20, 2006, 08:50:40 AM
It's not like the salesmen walk in with a gun on their hip.

But, if you try to work with a grass vendor and ask for a program that will support minor amendments or fertilization, they won't call you back.

Or at least that is what Don M. was explaining to me today.
I felt the true weight of the green system as Tom D. explains.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2006, 10:27:25 PM by Mike Nuzzo »
Logged
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.
Pages: [1]   Go Up