[Adam_F_Collins]

I'm thinking about grooming, maintenance, homegrown courses, etc. I'm in the midst of a mild Canadian winter here in Nova Scotia and such times bring me to little, home-grown courses that try to make a little extra cash by remaining open in such times.

We have a hell of a time, playing these courses. And I wonder how far a decent design would go with these little rough-around-the-edges, family clubs.

How good can a golf course be if the polish isn't there?

[Tom Huckaby]

GREAT question.

Of course my mind jumps to the Apache Stronghold example - by all accounts it is a fantastic design, but also by all accounts conditions there have been described all along the spectrum from "absolutely unplayable" to "not that bad, you overlook it because the design is so great", seemingly depending how much you are into design and/or are a Tom Doak apologist/worshipper.

I've never been there - I don't know one way or the other.

But it's always seemed to me that golf courses are meant as fields of play for the game of golf.  If conditions either make the play better or lesser, then that matters.

So toward your question - the reverse of this - well I can't see it being worth THAT much design effort if the courses are like pasture golf in their conditions.  Of course there is always going to be a niche for such things - hell look how pasture golf has developed it's own cult following - but is it really worth going crazy over design when conditions can NEVER be all that good?  Aren't winter-time golfers just happy to be able to play at all?

I guess the only way I'd see it as worth devoting a lot of time or effort to is in a situation where there are several of these "home-grown" courses in a given area, and you want yours to stand out.  But how often does that happen?

Because as great as your design is, well come spring, golfers are going to return to courses with better conditions.

I could have this all wrong though, because I live where there is no such thing as a harsh winter - my perspective might be way off.

TH

[PThomas]

design is by far the most important thing...I frankly don't understand if people downgrade a course because conditioning isn't "perfect"

Hogan said he didn't care about the rest of the course conditions as long as the greens were okay...a lot of sense to that, I think

[Brian Noser]

Paul,

Design may be the most important to you!!!! But I am sure there are many others (non GCA) that would take a perfectly mauequred fazio course over a doak with crappy fairways and rough with decent greens. Lets face it if the rest of the course is rough the greens are most likley not going to be perfect.

I just think you are thinknig about what people here think not the general public.

[Tom Huckaby]

Design is the most important thing.

But to say conditions don't matter at all to me is foolish.

Paul I know that's not what you said.  But wouldn't you agree that exceedingly great conditions warrant a positive, and exceedingly bad conditions warrant a negative?  Anything in between that would not matter much at all?

Think of it this way:  say one of Adam's little family courses desided to pour zillions into design, and it became a little gem of strategic golf.  BUT, all the fairways were much such that all tee shots plugged.  The bunkers were nothing but more mud.  The greens could be putted on only with a 2iron or something, running 2 on the stimp.  On top of that there were soft as pudding, with all approach shots plugging.

How great of a golf course would that really be?

Of course this is a silly example, taking it to an extreme that of course would never happen.  But I just use it and ask the question to illustrate that as much as we love the designers, well let's love the supers also.  Conditions do matter, as much as it seems uncool in here to admit.

TH

ps - I agree with Brian - our posts crossed.

[Kyle Harris]

Good design can save bad conditions.

Good conditions can't save bad design.

[Ryan Crago]

i dont think its that simple Kyle...  for those of us that hang out (read: lurk) here, that may be true, but for the general public that may or may not have an appreciation for good architecture?

often the first thing you hear about a course is: "wow.. great course, great condition"...

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle:  really?

Would you fly to AZ to play Apache Stronghold?

Would you NOT want to fly to GA to play Augusta?

Btw, I am absolutely NOT saying Augusta is bad design - far far far from it - but many in here would have you believe that today's course is indeed so, as "bastardized" as it has become.  In any case, just insert another "fantastic conditions" but no great shakes design course.  You might not seek such out, but I doubt you'd hate the experience.

In any case, I think your statement works as a vague generality... depending on how strong you make the word "save"... but take that too far and it fails.

And we're talking guys like us who are interested in design... take it out to the general public and no way your statement works.  Conditions do matter BIG time for Joe Q. Public.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Ryan,

I actually agree with you. The golfing public, as it were, love wall to wall manicuring. So much so that your statement has almost become cliche.

I've heard people play a great golf courses under less than optimum conditions and never comment how bad the fairways were, but how great the design was, though.

I seriously think that complimenting conditions may be today's version of "these are the nicest flagsticks I've ever seen."

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I posted this on an old blog a few years ago when I was working at the Penn State Golf Courses. I recently reposted it to my golf blog.

"This is from a blog I kept a few years ago. Detailing an experience I had in 2003 regarding my finding a "hidden" but neglected gem in Central PA.

To me, experiences like this are the greatest joy in golf.

I was just in the most hell forsaken place on the planet I think.
After work today, I decided I wanted to play golf. Since the PSUGC is closed for a three day tournament I had to go to a different course.
For some reason, I wasn't feeling Toftrees so I did some searching. I decided on a course about 30 miles southwest of here called Standing Stone. I knew the architect of the club and I like his work so I figured I would give it a try.
The drive down was beautiful, over and through mountains and valleys and what not. The course is off the beaten path some, and unless you are paying attention you would probably miss it. The entrance was narrow and was only one lane. The road gave a good view of the course and I was moderately optimistic at my choice.
The gentleman in the pro shop let me out after I showed him my PGA card. One notable thing about him was his business card, which he gave me. He apparently teaches and does trick shot shows. The golf shop itself was a small hut that was no bigger than a back yard shed and was completely seperate from a larger building used as the club house and restaurant.
The course looks like it was once a really good course. Walking down the first fairway I noticed signs of painstaking and futile effort to put the course back together. It saddened me that I saw half completeled projects with the shovels and other tools still lying around. The fairways were long, and very wet considering the rain we've been getting.
The thing is, the design is there. The holes are routed logically, the greens located on good spots and the bunkering, while overgrown somewhat, follows a path that could be challenging.
I only survived four holes before I couldn't take any more. I made a mental note of the ground, and the basic routing from the score card and left. It is very hard for me to see a remnant of what once was. This was obviously a course conceived by a genius at design (Geoffrey Cornish, for those keeping notes) and it wasn't meant to be this neglected.
To most people, it may be just another course. To me... it's a waste of very good effort."

To me, that's how the synergy can affect each other.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - well then we are copacetic - because yep, as great as the design is, if the course is unplayable, what good is it?  I'd have walked off too... that is if walking off a golf course was in my makeup... the one time I can recall doing so was in Ireland when I had to quit to make the Guinness brewery tour.  A man does need to prioritize sometimes.

But I digress....

In any case, I guess I get what you're saying in that that course in question can be "saved" just by giving it some TLC.  I get that.

I just don't get that a "bad" design with great conditions is all that horrible of a thing... sure it can't be saved for guys like us - we'd hate it - but there are plenty out there for whom those great conditions are enough.

Hell, the god-awful THE RANCH near me I so often disparage has pretty nice conditions.  It does get a lot of play - most people using the various specials they offer - but I swear to you the design there is so god-awful, I expected it to be a ghost town by now.  Oh they have suffered a bit - that's why they run the specials - but the fact it remains pretty widely-played - and thought of as a fun time by way too many people I know - is just a concrete example that nice conditions remain the coin of the realm for Joe Q. Public.

TH

[Kyle Harris]

I had a blast at Cobb's Creek this past August... despite the conditions.

The greens were darn near unputtable, but that didn't change the nature of the topography into the green. I just stopped caring about actually playing golf and was hitting the shots as they were designed.

That's a huge leap, but it is still possible to enjoy the golf course for the design.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - again, sure it was, for you.

But would you take your not-so-clued-into-design buddies there?

Concrete example is this:  I do semi-annual golf trips with my college buds.  We did Bandon last year, had a blast.  Now some are talking Arizona for next year, and well... I'd love to see Apache Stronghold and as bad as they say conditions are there, I'm sure I'd have fun, looking past such to enjoy the great design.

But there's no way on god's green earth I'd haul the college buds out there - I'd never hear the end of it.

Understand?

TH

[Kyle Harris]

Well, Doug Braunsdorf was with us... but I digress.  

The club does get a substantial amount of play (much like all the Philly munis). With some fairly decent public courses a reasonable drive out to the suburbs, I'd say these golfers are also making a choice as to where to play golf. Cobb's Creek still endures.

I believe there is a split between the CCFAD crowd and the true muni golfer that we are neglecting. For the CCFAD crowd, I wouldn't bring them near Cobb's Creek, because, like you said about your college buddies, I wouldn't hear the end of it.

You and I have both played our share of clunkers when it came to conditioning and design. How many of those courses were still crowded?

[Brian Noser]

Kyle in you last post you say The greens were unputtable, to me I would have been upset. I am one of very few on this site that enjoy the game of golf first and the achetecture second.  I am probally going to get reamed for saying that but it is the truth. If Rustic Canyon was just some run down half assed taken care of course it would not rank so highly on my list. call me John Q public or what ever I just think most who play golf feel this way except for the 1500 or so people here.

Tom quit stealing my thunder you post to quick!!!

As for toms post take Tierra Rejada close to Rustic in LA this course is usually in good shape I belive some good holes but overall pretty bad and people rave about it. People play this course over Rustic all the time.

[PThomas]

conditions matter...but only to a small degree

really, aren't all/most courses in pretty good shape nowadays..if a course gets a 7 out of 10 for conditioning, does it really matter/is it worth the extra time and money to get it to an 8?

I get pissed when they are way -overemphasized and it becomes a singificant factor in rating the course..M Village comes to mind...isn't that maintained to the nth degree?  does it really matter?  maybe if they weren't so perfect the pros wouldn't shoot lites out there all the time

Huck I agree that exceedinly bad conditions warrant a negative, but not that exceedingly good get a positive

it's the GAME that matters, not that it's played on a perfectly green carpet!

[Kyle Harris]

Brian,

For once or twice a year, would you tolerate Rustic Canyon under those conditions? Assume a reasonably lower price as well.  

I'm certainly not saying that I would play Cobb's everyday with those conditions... a man's gotta putt some time. But for one go 'round every now and then, it's perfectly tolerable.

I don't think it's an indictment of taste to want certain conditions for a golf course, as we all know better conditions do bring out the architecture.

[Tom Huckaby]

Kyle - that's a bad question to ask me, a man who lives in a HORRID area when it comes to courses per-golfer.  EVERY course is crowded.  The ones that aren't are uncrowded due to stupid high prices, not bad design.

Funny how many of those two things do go hand in hand though... so the bad design doesn't HELP, that's for sure... but price point rules the day when you have way too many golfers and way too few courses, as we do.

I refer back to THE RANCH.  Awful, horrid, mind-altering bad design.  Nice conditions.  Crowded as hell during price break times.  Open during full-price times, because they priced it way too high.

I shall refer you also to San Jose Muni.  Boring, bland design.  Average conditions at best.  Constantly packed.  Why?  Cheap price.

Here's another:  Spring Valley, Milpitas (btw, I don't expect you to know anything about these - they are local haunts):  decent design, I find it fun but others find it quirky and too weird.  Generally very good conditions, great drainage, quick smooth greens.  Constantly packed.  Why?  Good conditions at a good price.  Tolerable design at best for the CCFAD crowd.

I could go on and on....

TH

[Brian Noser]

I would yes. But I also played it as a 14 hole course   which many of the general public would not do. But over all if I am playing the first thing I would worry about is the conditions. Excluding the top courses, would you play if they had just topdressed or aerified or a poor review like apache, if the course had some archetectual merit?  I would wait to play another day to play some where that has not done this, I think many golfers feel this way.

look at www.greenskeeper.org it is a web site that is totally dedicated to the course conditions in LA and other areas.

[Tom Huckaby]

conditions matter...but only to a small degree

really, aren't all/most courses in pretty good shape nowadays..if a course gets a 7 out of 10 for conditioning, does it really matter/is it worth the extra time and money to get it to an 8?

I get pissed when they are way -overemphasized and it becomes a singificant factor in rating the course..M Village comes to mind...isn't that maintained to the nth degree?  does it really matter?  maybe if they weren't so perfect the pros wouldn't shoot lites out there all the time

Huck I agree that exceedinly bad conditions warrant a negative, but not that exceedingly good get a positive

it's the GAME that matters, not that it's played on a perfectly green carpet!

Paul - I guess all I can say is that there are plenty of people out there for whom a perfectly green carpet would be golf heaven.  As much as we find them wrong, misguided, whatever, well... I just can't discount their opinions completely as there really are a lot more of them than there are of us.

In any case, I guess you are relating this to magazine course rating?

If I were king, I'd do it this way:

1.  Horrid conditions get a negative, without a doubt.  If you can't play, the course is pretty meaningless.

2.  Great conditions get a postitive - but "great' does not mean perfectly green carpet.  Great means conditions suited to the design.  Firm and fast with no care at all about color, if design warrants such (think Wild Horse/Rustic Canyon/Sand Hills).  But green and soft if design warrants such (think way too many target golf courses).

3.  Overemphasis on conditions to the detriment of design gets a large negative.  Kinda tough to quantify that, but I hope you get my meaning.  

TH

[Bruce Katona]

There is a course here in the North Central portion of New Jersey that is truly a hidden gem.  I've spent some of my free time working with other"volunteers" to see what we could do to improve the conditions.  Given just a little TLC the course would have play increased tremendously.  The bones of a solid routing  still remain, but since no real operating budget exists, the grass is cut and that's about it.

As a muni, just a little better care would increase play.

[PThomas]

well said Huck

and of course I realize that many prefer great conditions over great design.....we are all entitled to our opinions

but I wonder if those would still feel the same way if they knew that getting those "really great" conditions probably means a higher green fee

[Tom Huckaby]

Bruce - ah but here's the rub - it doesn't get much play as it is, does it?

That has to tell one all one needs to know about the relationship between design and conditions.

On the other end it does get tougher - I'm not wholly convinced that bad design with great conditions will survive in the long term - but man I am seeing some powerful - and sad - examples of that.

The bottom line remains this: a golf course needs to be playable to make it in the long run.  To me it's just simple logic.

TH

[Brian Noser]

this is from Greenskeeper.org i thought thispost was a nice decsription of rustic dont ya think?

tjarnot - West Los Angeles
I have played this course a couple of times and in all honesty it is a bit too "quirky" for me. From the tee boxes and up the fairways all is well, but when you get to these rather peculiar greens and surrounding areas you just lose me. I understand the "British Open" style and what they are going for...don't mistake me. The bottom line is that many of the areas adjacent to the greens IN THE FAIRWAY are rock hard pan that you cannot chip off of, and I don't think a putter was ever meant to be used at 35 yards like I see a lot of people doing routinely on this course.
Add to this the pin placements and greens that are in some sense like the old minature golf courses. Strange hilly mounds and valleys with pin placemnts so weird that I heard a single digit handicapper I was paired with refer to one hole as "like the old volcano hole at the mini golf courses I played as a kid."
I should have been suspicious when on the course website it said, "You'll enjoy this course more with repeat playing". I see why frequent players might enjoy the course and its oddities, but for someone like myself who plays other top courses in the area, I prefer a course that is a fair challenge every time out-you don't need to play 10 times to get the "hang of it".

[Tom Huckaby]

well said Huck

and of course I realize that many prefer great conditions over great design.....we are all entitled to our opinions

but I wonder if those would still feel the same way if they knew that getting those "really great" conditions probably means a higher green fee

I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to understand that all that green grass and those fast smooth greens don't come free.

I just also think that MANY are willing to pay a premium for such - regardless of what the design holds.

There is one thing to keep in mind though:  the more I think about it, the more Kyle's initial statement is powerfully correct in the long term... Plenty of nicely-conditioned, overpriced course are failing big time.  It has happened yet here in NorCal, but it sure has in SoCal and in plenty of other places nationwide.  So the tide is turning... people are starting to realize that paying this premium is stupid... that conditions can only take one so far.

We still have a long way to go.  And as much as I do hate to see any golf course fail - it's my bias living where I do, needing way more golf courses, not less - well, in the end this trend really is a good thing.

If it leads to the building of more Rustic Canyons and less The Ranches, how could it not be?

TH

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()