Conditioning ? How much of a factor ?

[Matt_Ward]

From time to time the discussion on courses turns on the overall day-to-day care and attention to the subject of turf preparation. Now, I'm not speaking about having wall-to-wall ANGC syndrome outcomes, but having course conditions that promote effective and skillful shotmaking.

Clearly, certain turf conditions in particular locales in the USA don't really encourage the aerial and ground game dynamic that is ideal. That's not what I am speaking about.

But, I'm just wondering how much of a weight do people apply to the category of conditioning? For me, I always like to see courses with level tees and the absence of overdosing the course with H20 -- especially when man's hand causes it.

On the flip side I can't give free passes to courses that are just woefully bad simply because the design is superior. You have to play from some sort of turf in order to fully enjoy what has been designed.

I see conditioning as the final element that takes a course to the next level. But, I stress again I am not speaking to the creation of a ANGC turf program, but something that adds to the joy in playing that course. How do others view this and what weight do you apply that is fair and appropriate?

[George Pazin]

Matt -

Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you referring to how conditions affect one's general feeling about a course, or how one rate's a course?

Most of my golf is played on low low budget muni type courses, so I'm used to the worst & I don't honestly think it affects my feelings about the course too much. Maybe the green keeper, but not really the course. Also, the weather in the Burgh is not particularly conducive to firm & fast unless one has a top notch person in charge like the guys at Oakmont or Fox Chapel.

I will say the unbelievably thick rough at Mystic Rock greatly affected my enjoyment of the course in a negative way. I don't see the need for US Open rough at a resort course, but I did play it in October & maybe I just hit it in a bad time re: rain & upkeep. It's kind of depressing losing tee shots that are maybe 2 yards off the fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt Ward,

NGLA, GCGC, ANGC and PV would suffer with less than good conditioning.

Long fairway grass and soft spongey conditions would detract from the play of those courses.

TEPauls maintainance meld is a vital factor at the above clubs, and I equate that to daily conditioning at those clubs.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
Let me relate to you the general feeling of the many different players I have asked about conditions.

The #1 factor is the greens. Most prefer medium speed but are more concerned with how true they roll. Bare spots around fringes, three day old cups, etc., take a back seat to a smooth roll.
#2 is the fairways. Most prefer firm and are not too worried about some bare spots and such if there is grass enough to hit from. Slightly shaggy with the ball sitting up is the most favored.
#3 is tees. Ease of getting a peg in the ground seems to be more of a concern than level areas to hit from.
#4 is bunkers. Soft sand is a definite favorite over firm here.

Although good conditioning is important, especially if a club has lofty aspirations or is already in posession of same, I still prefer a good design with borderline conditioning to a pristine snoozer.  
  

[TEPaul]

JimK:

What you're referring to in this thread, for all intents and purposes, IS the "maintenance meld"!

As far as I'm concerned the old term of "conditioning", or "good condition" should be out and passe! It's far too general and far too easy for all golf courses to be treated or "conditioned" the same way, in a sort of "one size fits all" maintenance mentality-- when in reality various courses need "maintenance practices" that are more tailored to "meld" into their particular and unique designs and design intents!

Some think the "ideal maintenance meld" revolves mostly around firm and fast conditions and for certain courses it does to a large degree but there's much more to the "maintenance meld" than that in my mind!

But the overriding idea of it (the maintenance meld) is it involves considering and executing maintenance practices that are far more course specific than ever before. What works for one style or type may not work at all for another style and type and vice versa!

The old term of "good condition" generally just meant lush green and immaculate--and we all know many courses need much more maintenance consideration than just that!

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Our course played its absolute best for an all too brief period in September. It usually extends into October but it has been somewhat rainy and cold this month.
The greens were "denting" but did hold. The fairways were getting some color in their cheeks but were firm, allowing good roll but nothing endless. Bunkers were packing but it wasn't easy to tell if the sand under was going to perform in sync with what the surface offered. Winds were unpredictable as they get gusty/swirly this time of year.
When it's in this condition it satisfies the greatest number of players. Too bad it cannot be canned.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

The "ideal maintenance meld" (as described) is for those times and seasons when the weather is in sync with it.

Certainly there will be plenty of times when rain and such will change the course, make it play softer and longer and it's playability will be dramatically different but that's just the way it is. That adds to the variability of golf in my opinion, but the idea is to not have the course play that way artifically (when the course has had time to recover and when it hasn't rained)!

[Matt_Ward]

The reason I started this thread related to my time at Bethpage Black long before all the hoopla about hosting an Open even started to be considered.

The Black always had a quality to its layout, but the conditioning aspect was so neglected. Nonetheless, there were people (including myself) who argued at that time that irrespective of the conditioning the general layout still merited considertion. I have since reflected upon that and now believe that some sort of base conditioning elements must be in play when the merits of any course are considered.

Again, I't not advocating the meticulous care associated with the very elite private clubs as some sort of base level.

Jim:

I hear what you're saying except I don't buy the part about tees totally. There are way too many courses that have unlevel tees and in some cases you are hitting from downhill sidehill lies and all such other stances. Is anyone paying attention?

I do agree that your "base minimum" is clearly what the bulk of players would be expecting.

My other point to this thread is the constant debate about the merits of another course -- Apache Stronghold in Globe, AZ. Here you have a marvelous design by Tom Doak and although I've played the course only twice (on different days during one visit) the question of proper conditioning was clearly an issue for me when I was there about two years ago.

The debate on GCA has boiled down to those who say it doesn't matter the conditioning the layout is still superb. On the flip side are those who say that conditioning does play a role in maximizing the qualities of the design.

I know there is a new superintendent at the course now so things may have changed. However, there were a few posts that said things had not improved that much -- if at all.

I'm not really concerned about the conditioning argument relating to private clubs because the wherewithal to do something in those cases is usually an easier situation to handle in most instances.

Clearly, people are influenced by conditioning and I would dare say the question becomes one of degree.

I guess I could say on a scale of 1-10 how much does conditioning play when people play daily fee and taxpayer owned courses? In my mind if conditioning influences inherent design characteristics to such a degree that one cannot receive any consistent tendencies then the course cannot be viewed in a positive manner. Too many times when people play courses likes the former Bethpage Black the first thing many would say after finsihing the round is "wow, what a course, too bad the shape, isn't a bit better." The same was said about Pebble Beach not too long ago.

Do people see conditioning as an equal partner to such topics as overall shot values, design balance, routing ... or is it a minor aspect that should be viewed in only a periphery way?

[Tom Doak]

I will say that an architect cringes when one of his courses is not in good shape and yet it is appearing on lists of the great ones.  How many clients do you think I've sent to Apache Stronghold lately?  

If the course is rated highly what incentive do they have to get it in good shape?

Architecture and conditioning are two separate issues for different people to fix, but if the "maintenance meld" is not there, your rating ought to go down a couple of notches.

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom

I'm not at all sure about this statement:

"Architecture and conditioning are two separate issues for different people to fix."

In my business (strategy) it would be like saying:

"I've worked with you to build a creative and doable plan, but just go and sort out for yourselves how to axctaully do it."

Or, as Tom Lehrer said, in one of his immortal works:

"Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down?  That's not my department, says Werner von Braun."

Surely, architects have and (or should) demand proper maintenance/conditioning programs for their babies?

I wouldn't "sign off" on one of "my" plans if I didn't think that
the organisation left behind wasn't able and/or motivated to implement it.

[A.G._Crockett]

Rich,
I think that signing off is a good term; the architect does exactly that at some point, and then becomes really, really dependent on the greens super to make him look good.  The archie doesn't maintain any form of control over the overall conditioning of the course in perpetuity.
Jim Kennedy,
You are absolutely correct.  Conditions don't have to be "perfect" to enjoy a great design, and great conditions can't overcome a poor design.  Decent greens are the only absolute must in the equation.

[A_Clay_Man]

Matt- I still don't get your flat teeing ground. Why can't you adapt to the lie? Where's the water suppose to go?
Can't you use the slope to create a shot?

If it's sloped for everyone why isn't that fair?

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Given your comments and relating them to my initial visit to Apache Stronghold two years ago I would not rate the course #1 among public courses in Arizona as GolfWeek has. Now, I'll say this again -- I have not been back since that time and would love to see what, if any thing, has been done. In terms of strategic creation the course does work -- no doubt.

I do agree with you that if a course is continually viewed as being a wondeerful experience INSPITE of poor turf preparation there is little incentive for things to turn around in a prompt manner.

As I said before, with a new superintendent at that facility I will be returning sometime in early '03 and see firsthand what's really happening.

Conditioning to me is really the yang in the overall linkage with ying. It is not the primary aspect of concern, but if it is too far apart and the key "base" elements are not present then you have the very distinct possibility for people to talk about the course in terms of "what if" rather than "what is."
Yes, they are two distinct fields (architecture & turf preparation) but there are quite a few people who may give a "free pass" to a facility simply because of the architecture and I don't know how ones does that for reasons I've already posted.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
The cost of a round at these daily/muni courses is also a factor. Just fair and $25.00 beats just fair and $50.00. Most folks have a good sense of the relationship between cost and condition when it comes to spending their hard earned cash.
How much more would those people who played the old BB course be willing to pay for better conditions? If the state of NY paid for all the renovations then the home crowd might have to fess up the same fees as out of state players. I don't think that would fly.  

The separate factors of conditioning, cost, total design elements, etc., are inter-related. Scaling them for relative importance is not as easy as 1 to 10, however, there is a point where bad conditions outweigh any other factor, unless the golf was free.  
 I think it might be said that all factors are on the periphery until one outweighs the other, at that time they all become suspects.      

[Tom Doak]

I brought this up again because Jim Urbina went back to Apache Stronghold last week to see what all the fuss was about.  He says it's not as bad as what's been reported.

They have planted bermudagrass on several holes, and will plant the rest to bermuda next summer.  In the meantime, they've overseeded the rest of the course with ryegrass so it's playable this winter.

We'll keep our fingers crossed.

Matt W:  You've hit on one of the problems of any ranking, including Golfweek's.  They didn't really rate Apache Stronghold as "the best public access course in Arizona," they rated it one of the best modern courses, ahead of all the others in the state.  There is a difference, but it seems to be lost on advertising copywriters in particular.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom Doak:

Have to differ with you.

GolfWeek ran a "Special Edition" dated March 5, 2002 and there is a specific category listing for the best public access courses, daily fee and resorts. All of the 50 states are ranked according to the best in order.

For the State of Arizona -- Apache Stronghold holds the top spot among all public courses in the Grand Canyon State. Yes, they also have a top 100 listing for the classic and modern listing and AS finished 56th. I have issues with that given that quite a few courses finished behind it that are equal, if not better, in strategic considerations, as well as having better daily turf conditions. Again, I emphasize I thought the course was playable with a small "p" when I played it two years ago but there could have been some attention to details to a variety of holes. Given that one of your folks was just there and reports things aren't as bad as reported I'll be most interested in seeing for myself in the Spring of '03. And, since there is a new superintendent on board it will be interesting to understand what the areas of emphasis will be.

P.S. I really liked the course but ultimately conditioning needs to be factored when reviewing a facility otherwise as you stated so correctly what incentive does the facility have to improve if major publications say its already first rate?

[Mark_Fine]

The one time I played Apache Stronghold, the course was brown and rock hard.  I have to say I loved it, but than again my passion is links style golf so it was like being in Scotland.  You just have cactus replacing the gorse!  

I actually gave it a very good conditioning score but then again, I may be a bit unusual in that regard.  

That same week, I also played the Talking Stick courses and I actually downgraded the one because it was so green and lush which I thought was out of character to what C&C would have envisioned for the design.

Conditioning is very subjective.  One thing I do feel is important, however, is greens that roll relatively true.  When three foot putts become "adventures", I grade it down at least to some extent.

[Tom Doak]

Matt:  I forgot, you're right that GOLFWEEK did run the list as the "best public access courses in each state."

However, that's not really what the panel voted on, is it?  As I understand, the secondary list was just culled from the Best Modern and Best Classic courses lists, which aren't even judged on exactly the same standards.  The list is produced that way to allow even MORE courses and MORE developers to promote their courses as "such and such on the GOLFWEEK ranking," which promotes both the course and GOLFWEEK.

My point was that, if you asked me to rate the best modern courses, I'd vote slightly differently than I would if you asked me to rate the best public courses in each state.  My list of the best modern courses would be skewed toward unique architecture, while my list of the best public courses in each state would give more weight to conditioning and how the public is treated.

Trying to combine both into one survey is exactly why Apache Stronghold is at the center of controversy.

[Tom Doak]

PS - One of the reasons that conditioning counts for more in the GOLF DIGEST rankings than in GOLF Magazine's is based on a similar factor.  

GOLF Magazine is asking its panelists to rate the best courses worldwide (and then culls a list of top American courses from those results).  Well, when you're ranking the best courses in the world, you just have to place less emphasis on conditioning, because Dornoch and St. Andrews would not be one of the top 500 conditioned courses in the U.S. in the eyes of most observers.  (I, like Mark Fine, would dissent on my preference for "firm and fast," but most golfers wouldn't even compare them.)

[RJ_Daley]

Perhaps a raw nerve, but doesn't it start with proper turf selection before the course is grown in?  How do mistakes in turf selection occur in the planning stage?  Whose responsibility is it to select the best turf species for fairway greens, tees, and roughs to meld with the climate and water-soil environment?  It seems to me, if you start out with the wrong grass, you can't even think about reaching an optimum meld of conditioning with architectural intent.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I don't doubt that a listing of "best modern" versus one that's just "overall public" can be different for the reasons you mentioned. I think it's incumbent upon the pub to let the reader know that -- don't you? Let me also point out that my "best public" would not include such aspects on the touchy feely "how the public is treated" or place too heavy an emphasis on conditioning to the detriment of strategic values when playing.

Clearly the category of "conditioning" can often be in the mind of the beholder as you referenced with the example of Dornoch and TOC and their conditioning versus that of other American courses. Look, one of my pet peeves is playing courses that don't have level tees. I don't mind if they feature a bit of dirt, or are even bare, but if I have to go through an entire day of unlevel tees or tees that are left too high and therefore suffer from a cushy carpeting effect I have a major league problem with that respective course and it doesn't matter if the layout is a strategic masterpiece.

You see Tom -- I can't separate the architecture from the elements of rudimentary course grooming. For too many years that was the problem with Bethpage Black as I have pointed out and you well know. Years ago -- I simply divorced conditioning and looked at the course from a narrow architectural only point of reference. You know the phrase "great layout but ..." As a golfer I must produce shots from turf -- not from drawings.

I do believe that Mark Fine's point in having worthy putting surfaces is essential because that's where the bulk of the game is played in gaining / losing strokes. Having greens in unnaceptable or inconsistent shape prevents that. However, I'm a bit more flexibile when applying the tag "firm and fast" because certain turf situations, as you well know, prevent that from being easily or even prudently done.

As far as GolfWeek is concerned I don't know if the public listing was "just culled" from their assessment on the Classic and Modern listing. When you say that the desire to list more courses is to benefit developers and the magazine I don't if that's the reason, but I'm not that naive to believe you are completely in error either.  It might behoove someone with more info on the GolfWeek process to explain that particular point in greater detail.

Since public golf has exploded in this country within the last 25 years I am glad to see a major publication has decided to analyze what's out there. Most of the people who play will only read about places like Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Shinnecock Hills, etc, etc. My only issue with GolfWeek or any other pub is trying to assess facilities that are taxpayer owned versus privately owned daily fees. Many people would gain from such info because fees at the latter can be a tough proposition to encounter on a steady basis.

I will say this given my experience in reviewing facilities and from the perspective in having been a bonafide pub links player all my life -- conditioning has to be weighed into the equation. I admit it's a secondary point of emphasis, but it cannot be dismissed or somehow viewed as a "separate issue." Yes, I am aware many architects must get pissed at seeing their designs operated in a ho-hum fashion. But, conditioning plays a role -- how much will clearly vary with the player but I can remember just a few seasons ago when Baltusrol completely lost their geens to disease. If a ratings were done competently you would have to drop the course until such time as matters have changed.

Again, I will say this again -- I'm not suggesting or promoting the ANGC turf grass approach. But, given what I saw of Apache Stronghold in my initial two days of play I would have to say the course was borderline playable and clearly the element of conditioning needs to be included because other courses in AZ that are also public have demonstrated a sustained and consistent approach to that particular category and are only slightly behind, if at all, in terms of overall strategic considerations such as shot values, routing, and the like.

I look forward to seeing AS again when I visit the Grand Canyon state in the Spring to confirm my initial impressions or be pleasantly surprised with what is there now. We shall see.

[Tim Weiman]

Matt Ward:

From what I can tell conditioning is something most people value. I'm not talking about rater types, just ordinary wekend golfers.

But, I would still regard visits to Bethpage and Yale when both were in horrible condition amongst my most enjoyable golf adventures. At Bethpage I found #2 tee so bad I couldn't even get a tee in the ground. At Yale there were entire parts of a couple fairways that were bare dirt.

Still, the design was so appealing in both cases that I loved the courses, Yale probably even more than Bethpage.

Less than ideal conditioning doesn't detract from every course.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim Weiman:

"Less than ideal conditioning doesn't detract from every course."

The issue isn't about "ideal conditioning" -- it's about a base minimum tied to the concept of "playability." The Black years ago was barely playable given the conditions that existed then. Yes, the layout was exceptional, but when a certain base floor is not achieved I don't believe you can simply close one's eyes and say "who cares" -- "just look at the layout."

The overall strategic value (i.e. shot values, design flow, etc) of the course is enhanced when a base floor of conditioning exists. For the Black and even Yale the floor was not met then. It is the Black now -- I can't say the same for Yale.

Let me also repeat that even top rated courses experience turf related issues and its important that changes in any ratings system reflect this. When Diamond Head owned Pinehurst they completely altered the nature of what the course was designed to be. As a result GD dropped the course a number of spots and I believe such an action was completely defensible and in fact warranted.
 
 

[Tom Doak]

Matt W:

Yale, certainly, has always had to be treated with caution.

I'm much more interested in your Baltusrol example.  How exactly is a magazine ranking supposed to take that stuff into account?  Most of the panelists haven't seen a course for some time.  Merion's greens died twice within three years back in the early nineties, and it had no impact on its ranking that I could tell.

Certainly, most golf course superintendents do not want their jobs tied to ranking successes ... or they wouldn't if they fully understood who was judging them!

P.S.  I'm also a bit bothered to think that unlevel tees can completely overshadow a great golf course for you.

[Matt_Ward]

Tom D:

I'm not some stuffed short regarding tees -- it's just a pet peeve of mine when I see other areas on a course get first class attention, but you see tees in the same deplorable preparation year after year. It should not take an Act of Congress for someone to get out there with a carpenter's rule and say we've got a problem here. Would I hold a strategic gem down if this was the only issue -- no, not on the first go round. However, if a I returned there and it's even worse than the first time I would certainly make note of it for my review and grade one aspect of the conditioning program as suspect. Otherwise, how will anyone get the message?

Just realize this -- what is conditioning anyway? It's about attention to details. How tough can it be to straighten out the issue given the fact that many clubs have ornamental flower presentations that would make the White House blush! I'm just advocating a certain "base" level of "playability."

Tom, you raise a good point about periodic visits and how would they / could they be factored? Too many people see a course, myself included, from one "snapshot" moment in time and from that point hold it at that level -- irrespective of what may happen after the fact. Think of it like the Notre Dame syndrome in college football. There are some people who gave Notre Dame the benefit of the doubt whether or not the team's record supports that standing. Is that fair? I don't think so. You judge courses on the merits of how they are and WHEN you were there is part of that equation. Clearly, it puts pressure on panelists to be as accurate as possible and given the fact that things can change it's important to note them. GD did this with its review of Pinehurst given the manner in which the course was prepared daily and how it went totally against the grain of how Donald Ross envisioned it.

When you ask how a magazine takes this into account you ask a fair question. In my mind -- numbers need to be thrown out much more frequently and you start from a zero point. That's how we do it with Jersey Golfer. I also believe GD does this and I think if raters simply gloss over the fact that a course, even for a small window of time, is having significant turf issues, you simply have to make note of it and let the chips fall where they may. If raters turn a blind eye to this then they are simply failing to be as thorough and accurate as they need to be, in my opinion.

What's almost laughable is that people will give a "classic" course such a wide berth in terms of its daily turf preparation and then beat over the head the local muni. Bethpage faced this for years.

My whole point in this is that conditioning does play a role (a secondary one clearly) in how one can best extract the unique design aspects originally intended by the architect. Tom, you designed a magnificient layout in Pac Dunes. If the course suffered serious turf issues that impinged on the inherent architectural qualities I would have no problem in lowering my assessment of the course. I would do the same thing to Pac Dunes ... to Pine Valley or to any other facility. And, when matters change I would make an adjustment as needed.