[Kenny Baer]

I could not agree more with what Matt has to say; from his over 9,000 post I get the feeling he knows exactly what he is talking about.

Go play a cow pasture that is a great lay out and tell me that the condition does not have anything to do with the fun you are able to have while playing it, OF COURSE IT DOES.
 
A course can be brown and still be in great playable condition if the course was built to play that way, but golf was not meant to play on greens with no grass or fairways made of dirt.  Although I have never played AS I get the feeling I know exactly what Matt is speaking of. 

I get annoyed by people who claim that the condition of the course does not matter to them; I call BS!!!

[Cliff Hamm]

Cliff,

 One could (not illogically I would argue) say that modern conditioning has deadend the architecture.

The architecture was alive, the conditioning absent.

This is absolutely inconsistent and illogical.  Conditioning does matter.

[Ryan Farrow]

The horrible condition has nothing to do with the "Design", which speaks loudly for itself.

On the other hand, fun and playability, are hurt.

[Matt_Ward]

Ryan, et al:

AS is a design in its theory because when basic conditioning (this doesn't mean an Augusta or similiar type manicuring) is not present -- as it wasn't when I last played there the previous two times -- the full EFFECT of what Doak designed is then compromised because of the lack of consistency on the conditioning front.

I have said this numerous times -- conditioning is not the first among equals for me. I have stated before that front page items for me start with the land itself, the comprehensiveness of the routing and the sheer complexity / diversity of the overall shotmaking / holes are the primary ingredients that I judge first and foremost.

However ...

The conditioning serves to accentuate what is present. The issue with AS that I have personally experienced is that you cannot fully enjoy what is designed there because the basic levels of conditioning are simply not present. To wit -- when you have a course that has a number of tees that are not level -- when you have fairways which look like they have the measles -- when you have greens which require a shoulder turn on one putt and then speed up on others, and so forth and so on.

AS has the potential to be what Jonathan mentioned -- no doubt he believes it's there now -- I really enjoyed m first visit to AS when the conditions were at least acceptable. I'll be more than happy to return to Globe when I hear that the level of conditioning is on the way to a healthy situation so that the design elements are truly able to flourish to their maximum.

[Andy Troeger]

I tend to agree with Matt on this topic. If a minimal level of conditioning is not present, its pretty hard to even evaluate the design. Its not hard from a tee-to-green perspective, but greens lose something when they are not maintained properly. One can certainly get some idea of the contour and all that, but the overall experience is compromised because one probably can't putt in the fashion the the architect intended. Small nuances of the design just don't come out. This isn't to say that courses have to be perfect--they just can't be dreadful. Having not been to AS, I have no clue whether this applies to the particular course. I'm hoping to see it this winter.

[Ryan Farrow]

If a minimal level of conditioning is not present, its pretty hard to even evaluate the design.

Absurd! I don't care if the course had been abandoned for 2 years. If you can't evaluate a design because of conditioning you should keep you opinion to yourself.   


I will agree with Matt on the fact that you will not get the full effect! I would group Papago into the same category, the conditions at the course were not perfect by any means but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a great golf course there. The only difference is, Papgo is doing something about it. I think Apache will always be fighting to keep things good enough to stay in business, not much more.

[Jonathan Cummings]

If you were to walk Pacific Dunes the day before they grassed it would you be able to measure the character of the design?  I assure you the likes of Doak, Klein, Shackelford, and many others would have no problem.  Of course Matt is right, conditioning matters when playing a course.  It's just too transitory a factor to weigh down or promote golfing landscape architecture.  I'm of a camp that believes you should divorce conditioning from your evaluation of a golf course.  Others believe differently.

JC

[Andy Troeger]

If a minimal level of conditioning is not present, its pretty hard to even evaluate the design.

Absurd! I don't care if the course had been abandoned for 2 years. If you can't evaluate a design because of conditioning you should keep you opinion to yourself.   


I will agree with Matt on the fact that you will not get the full effect! I would group Papago into the same category, the conditions at the course were not perfect by any means but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that there is a great golf course there. The only difference is, Papgo is doing something about it. I think Apache will always be fighting to keep things good enough to stay in business, not much more.

Ryan,
I'm probably not getting your humor with the smilies, but you pretty much took a quote out of context and then agreed with the rest of my post. Perhaps I didn't convey my intent very well. You can evaluate the course obviously, but you don't get the full effect as you say--you're guessing as to what the course would be like if they took care of it. Its not to say you give the course a 3 instead of a 7--the bones are still there but the nuances may not be. Does that change the evaluation of the design significantly? Probably not. It just forces the evaluator to be more subjective than they already have to be by imagining how the course would play if conditioned in a reasonable fashion.

Playing Papago in 2007 the conditions weren't THAT bad, especially for a muni. Sure, some TLC would go a long way, but as you say you could play the golf course and putt the greens. At the same time, if the project is done right it should be a better course upon re-opening than it was prior. If Apache is in that kind of condition I think this whole discussion is excessive, but the comments would make it seem worse.

I certainly don't believe conditioning is an important part of rating a course. Its a criteria, but one of the lesser ones. The important part to me is that the course have some minimal level of conditioning that brings out the design features. One can make an evaluation without it I suppose, but the ability to play the golf course is important; that is kind of the point after all.

Jonathan,
One change to your statement and I'd agree with it. I believe you can divorce conditioning from your evaluation of the DESIGN. If you're evaluating a golf course then I think conditioning absolutely counts for something.

[Matt_Ward]

Jonathan:

You seem to keep on missing a key point -- I can certainly walk a layout that has not been grassed and get an IDEA on what will come. I saw the outlines of Black Mesa before it opened and could get the real sense on where the course was going. It was CONFIRMED when I actually played it and when the turf conditions played a key SUPPORT role in bringing those elements to life. I can say the same thing happened over the many years I played Bethpage Black when grass grew there by accident rather than by design.

The actual REALITY of that analysis only comes from the playing of shots and from seeing the intersection between the DESIGN and how the conditioning brings such situations to life in ACTUALITY. I don't doubt Doak and other trained eyes could conceptualize what might / will happen with a particular design but the issue for any design is the final step in taking the drawings and aspirations and putting them into final motion. Conditioning is the last item -- it is the dessert that adds the final touch to the qualities of the meal.

If I and others were to "divorce conditioning from your evaluation of a golf course" then take that argument to its maximum and why have any conditioning at all? Let's just simply see the plans and let it go at that.

Gents:

I'll say this again for the hard of hearing -- I am not advocating an Augusta like conditioning program or anything of that sort. But the basic elements need to be included. I really enjoyed AS the first time I was there - the last two times changed my disposition. Jonathan speaks about the transitory nature of conditioning -- that's true -- it can certainly go up and down depending upon the staffing and expertise that's on display.

Papago is a good example of that type. The place has possibilities -- so do plenty of other courses. As Andy mentioned -- having the bones of an outline is not sufficient for me and many others to see if there's a real connect when you actually play the game on that course or any other for that matter.

[Garland Bayley]

Playing a course and seeing how the conditions affect how it plays is either not necessary to determine the quality of the design, or that thud you just heard was the value of The Confidential Guide falling back to earth.

I would agree that for some people conditions will affect how much fun they perceive they are having.

I would agree that greens in rotten condition will also affect how much fun some people have.

However, will bare spots (as opposed to completely bare, large sections) in the fairway change the players choice of line of play? Will inconsistent green speeds change the shot the player will choose for their approach? How is the design diminished if the shots a player chooses to play are not changed? Are you saying that you will start aiming for the hazards, because the last player probably raked it and you prefer that to a random bare spot you may have ended up on if you had played your normal shot?

How would you play AS differently if it were maintained immaculate fast and firm as opposed to sptty fast and firm?

I don't think a great architect's decisions on laying out the elements of a great design matter much on whether the course plays fast and firm, or fast and spotty firm.

I suppose one could claim that an architect is not great if he lays out his courses to play slow and soft. But that would go against TEP's theories and one doesn't want to go there.

[Garland Bayley]

Cliff,

 One could (not illogically I would argue) say that modern conditioning has deadend the architecture.

The architecture was alive, the conditioning absent.

This is absolutely inconsistent and illogical.  Conditioning does matter.

Please explain the inconsistency. To me they are perfectly consistent. Perhaps I ddin't explain them sufficiently.

[Cliff Hamm]

Cliff,

 One could (not illogically I would argue) say that modern conditioning has deadend the architecture.

The architecture was alive, the conditioning absent.

This is absolutely inconsistent and illogical.  Conditioning does matter.

Please explain the inconsistency. To me they are perfectly consistent. Perhaps I ddin't explain them sufficiently.

Garland your basic tenet has been that conditioning does not affect one's view of architecture.  Yet here you say in one instance that modern conditioning indeed has negatively impacted architecture.  Your second statement is consistent with your basic premise.  The two statements are therefore not consistent with one another....

There is one caveat though.  If there is no conditioning you seem to think it has no impact on the architecture.  It is only when water is utilized that it impacts the architecture negatively.  What if a course was never designed to play lightning and hard (beyond fast and firm - baked fairways, 100 additional yards on drives, greens can't be held, etc.) but those were the conditions.  Would conditions now impact the architecture or does it only work the other way around?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland your basic tenet has been that conditioning does not affect one's view of architecture.  Yet here you say in one instance that modern conditioning indeed has negatively impacted architecture.  Your second statement is consistent with your basic premise.  The two statements are therefore not consistent with one another....

That piece I did not understand. My second statement is consistent with my premise, but the two  are not consistent?
Well maybe, I get your point. I know I am not the best writer. My statement about modern conditioning deadening architecture was meant to be if you can say that conditioning (i.e. that which makdes for grass to grow as a consistent carpet) brings architecture alive, then you must also take my example of TW and say that conditioning can also deaden (render irrelevant) architecture (for which I expected the challenge of it's the ball, stupid).

Also, my typical pithyness probably did not make it clear that I believe Matt is complaining about fast and firm well conditioned (consistent carpet of grass) vs. fast and firm spotty conditioned.

My example of irrigation in the British Isles was such an example, because a links course will play relatively fast and firm without irrigation and with a reasonable amount of irrigation.

[Andy Doyle]

I had a chance to play Apache Stronghold back in March.  Who knows what the summer did to the conditioning, but while it was far from lush, I found the playing conditions just fine.  Most of my playing is on munis, so less than Augusta-like conditions don't bother me.  As a contrast, I played We-Ko-Pa Saguaro the day before - it was very well manicured.  This was my first time playing desert courses, and I found the lushness of We-Ko-Pa almost disorienting.  While there were clearly some maintenance issues that could be improved, the scruffiness of AS seemed to fit the desert environment better.  I thoroughly enjoyed We-Ko-Pa Saguaro - I had a BLAST playing Apache Stronghold.

We-Ko-Pa Saguaro 1st Tee:


Apache Stronghold 1st Tee:


Saguaro fairway lie #7:


Apache Stronghold fairway lie #6:


Saguaro green surround #5:


Apache Stronghold green surround #7:


There were clearly some conditioning issues - 1 tee box (#7?) was really bare, and several greens had some problems, but as an overall experience, it was great.



Andy

[Matt_Ward]

Andy:

You raise a very valid point. When I played Saguaro at We-Ko-Pa it was soon after it opened. The course was extremely slow to the degree of nearly being point-to-point type play. I've said this before that often times you will find courses in the southwest of the USA that go to great lengths to overwater and as a result any semblance of firm and fast is illusory rather than real.

One last thing -- I NEVER opined that I expected AS to be Augusta like or anything close to that when I was there. The issue is more about having basic conditions that can maximize what the architecture provides. Nothing more -- nothing less.

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

Your original word was transform. Now you say maximize. Transform implies total change. Maximize implies incremental change. Please give an example of such incremental change.

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

If you bothered to notice -- let alone read what I wrote on post #28 -- it will provide thei nfo you seek.

Simple as that ...

[Garland Bayley]

Matt,

I read your examples. I did not then, nor now see how they "maximize" the architecture. I can understand they may incrementally improve your personal feelings about the course, but I don't see where you say they incrementally improve the architecture. I believe Ryan and I are using architecture and design as somewhat synonymous concepts. I believe Ryan and I would agree that conditioning falls more under the category of maintenance than architecture.

[Andy Doyle]

OK, images fixed (FWIW, Photobucket is SO much better than Snapfish).

Matt - I was disappointed that Saguaro was pretty soft - even squishy in places.  Even though the fairways were cut very short, there wasn't much run in them.

I didn't mean to imply that you expected AGNC conditions at ASGC.  It was just to give my frame of reference as someone who does not expect or demand pristine conditions - as do many of the buddies I play with.

Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed Saguaro.  I just thought Apache Stronghold was really, really fun, particularly off the tee - e.g. challenging the wash on #2, hitting over the knob on 15, and wondering if I could reach the fairway on #18 if I bombed it right over the Grand Tetons (I could, but only with my 2nd WTF ball).

Andy

[Matt_Ward]

Garland:

I'm sorry you are having a hard time with the words I have written several times. I've tried to help your confusion -- but alas you simply don't fathom what I have written. I thought my ability to communicate in English was fairly good. For the last time I never said conditioning was a first among equals -- it is, however, an important secondary item which serves to illuminate all the elements that the design has to offer. If basic conditioning, at a minimum is not present, then the finer details of the design will simply not be able to rise to the surface to their maximum potential.

With all due respect -- end of story.

Andy:

Thanks -- I see Saguaro as less than what AS provides. The issue is if and when AS ever gets to a level of consistency so that all the design elements can indeed flourish. I also think the squishy sensations you had at Saguaro have been repeated to me by several other folks who have played there.

I thoroughly recommend you head to Vista Verde the next time you are in the area.

[Garland Bayley]

... If basic conditioning, at a minimum is not present, then the finer details of the design will simply not be able to rise to the surface to their maximum potential.
...

That's just it Matt. You have not written on this thread an explanation of how that is possible. You have listed conditions that are not optimum, but have made no statement of how they prevent the design from reaching maximum potential. Correct me if I am wrong, but all that says to me is that you don't like poorly conditioned courses. The design is the same in either case. You play the same shots, you may take a few extra putts, but the design is the same.

[Tom Yost]

Your chance to experience in person and see if the strength of the architecture overrides the woeful maintenance practices at the Apache Stronghold.

Tee time made - 9:30AM Sunday Oct 19

We have room for one more if anyone is interested.  We will probably carpool from east Mesa.

Send me a PM...
Tom

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()