[John Kavanaugh]

Mark,
I think the courses can request that the old ballots be thrown out if they feel the changes are significant enough, but for that to make sense they have to be willing to accept a lot of panelist play to get back to 45 ballots quickly.

Pinehurst is public. Joel said earlier that if they were only "Panelist Friendly" they would be ranked higher.

This is the exact quote:

"I would not call those courses "dismissed". For the record, LA North moved up 6 spots to #41.   Quaker Ridge which had fallen off the list is now back on at #69.  I'll grant you Pinehurst is a mystery and is absurdly under rated but they are not panelist friendly and may not have received that many votes???"

[Andy Troeger]

John,
I wouldn't be surprised if Pinehurst has had 45 visits since the renovation--I would consider them fairly "panelist friendly" from my own experience and believe a lot of panelists have wanted to see it. I'm just saying generally that if a course with work done wants to "start over" then it takes them 45 new ballots to be considered again, not every course wants to deal with that, especially the private clubs.

[John Kavanaugh]

From what I believe by reading between the lines Pinehurst has been made to be a much more difficult driving course taking away it's iconic charm.

[Sven Nilsen]

Kevin:

In an effort to encourage further comment, here's the entire list for conditioning:

Augusta National   8.9802
Oakmont C.C.   8.7108
Pine Valley   8.5744
Shinnecock Hills   8.4817
The Quarry at La Quinta   8.4132
Muirfield Village   8.4065
The Alotian Club   8.4007
Double Eagle   8.3996
Canyata   8.3761
Chicago Golf   8.2992
Baltusrol (Lower)   8.2934
Oakland Hills (South)   8.2931
Sand Hills   8.2820
Cypress Point   8.2409
Kinloch   8.2229
Crystal Downs   8.2004
Merion (East)   8.1989
Seminole   8.1938
Eagle Point   8.1748
Diamond Creek Golf Club   8.1725
Oak Hill (East)   8.1721
Southern Hills   8.1526
Castle Pines   8.1459
Baltusrol (Upper)   8.1314
Winged Foot (West)   8.1306
Butler National   8.1201
Wade Hampton   8.0999
Peachtree   8.0979
National Golf Links of America   8.0879
Friar's Head   8.0852
Interlachen   8.0596
Shadow Creek   8.0580
Gozzer Ranch   8.0530
Pikewood National   8.0477
Dallas National   8.0248
Flint Hills   8.0239
Milwaukee C.C.   8.0214
San Francisco   8.0164
The Preserve   7.9801
The Estancia Club   7.9699
Riviera Country Club   7.9655
Inverness   7.9583
Sebonack   7.9361
Mayacama   7.9327
Scioto   7.9158
French Lick (Dye)   7.9074
The Club at Black Rock   7.9048
Mountaintop   7.9042
Calusa Pines   7.8986
Sahalee (South/North)   7.8753
The Honors Course   7.8673
The Country Club   7.8640
Hudson National   7.8628
Prairie Dunes   7.8571
Olympia Fields (North)   7.8491
Cherry Hills   7.8461
The Olympic Club (Lake)   7.8456
Plainfield   7.8390
Aronimink   7.8221
The Golf Club   7.8175
Garden City   7.8104
Rich Harvest Links   7.7900
Congressional   7.7794
Quaker Ridge   7.7779
Pebble Beach   7.7766
Los Angeles C.C. (North)   7.7751
Laurel Valley   7.7723
The Ocean Course   7.7575
Grandfather   7.7534
Blackwolf Run (River)   7.7510
Crooked Stick   7.7486
Arcadia Bluffs   7.7380
Boston Golf Club   7.6987
Whistling Straits (Straits)   7.6950
Medinah No. 3   7.6760
Monterey Peninsula (Shore)   7.6479
Whispering Pines   7.6469
Hazeltine National   7.6379
Pacific Dunes   7.6371
Shoal Creek   7.6279
Old Macdonald   7.6164
Forest Highlands   7.6114
Old Sandwich   7.5881
Pete Dye Golf Club   7.5716
Fishers Island   7.5608
Pinehurst (No. 2)   7.5591
Valhalla   7.5439
Kittansett Club   7.5285
Winged Foot (East)   7.5237
Bethpage Black   7.5219
Bandon Dunes   7.5212
Victoria National   7.5029
Spyglass Hill   7.5007
Bandon Trails   7.4803
TPC Sawgrass (Players)   7.4780
Somerset Hills   7.4025
Kapalua (Plantation)   7.2415
Ballyneal   7.2042
Harbour Town   7.1448
Maidstone Club   7.0835

[Mac Plumart]

Could someone list the entirety of the conditioning definition used by Golf Digest?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Could someone list the entirety of the conditioning definition used by Golf Digest?

Not quite all but most.

RESISTANCE TO SCORING
 
How difficult, while still being fair, is the course for the scratch player from the back tees?
What it means:
We’re not seeking to determine America’s 100 Greatest Championship Courses. Our definition of greatest involves courses designed primarily to challenge low handicap amateur golfers, not tour professionals.
How to determine Resistance to Scoring
The question is not whether a course is tough for the tour pro. On a calm day, no course is too tough for the tour pro. At last look,
16
the course record is 62 at Pebble Beach, Pinehurst No. 2 and Prairie Dunes. And will soon go lower, no doubt. At any time, given the skill level of the average tour player, and the incredible equipment they use, even top courses set up in championship condition can be easy. Davis Love III’s 269 at Winged Foot West in the 1997 PGA did not mean that the course was toothless. Only five players broke par in that event and no one broke par in the 2006 U.S. Open. The 2006 winner, Geoff Ogilvey finished at five over par.
We prefer to consider how testing the course is for a scratch golfer, a player who may be several shots worse than the average tour pro from the back tees. That’s because most courses, even those on our list of America’s 100 Greatest won’t be played by tour professionals. But they will be challenged by scratch players many, many times.
To deserve a high score in Resistance to Scoring, the course must be difficult but still fair.
A course that demands 260-yard carries over hazards from every tee is indeed difficult, but is not fair. Particularly if half of those tee shots are into prevailing winds.
A course with every green guarded by water is difficult, but again it’s not a fair test.
If the course is tough but unfair, give it a lower score.
If it’s eminently fair but not particularly tough, give it a lower score.
Only if it achieves that balance of being both testing but fair in its challenges, does a course deserve a high score in Resistance to Scoring.

The ideal in Resistance to Scoring
The ideal course must take into account various weather conditions. It cannot be brutally tough on calm days, because on windy days it then becomes impossible. It can’t be tough only when tee markers are placed to the very back because on wet days it then becomes unreachable. It can’t rely only on pin positions tucked behind bunkers because pin placements must be rotated to spread out wear and tear.
Example: A model for Resistance to Scoring might be Harbour Town on Hilton Head Island. At 6,973 yards long, with smallish greens and all sorts of hazards, it can be a difficult course for a scratch player. Yet it is hard to find an unfair hole on the course. Even in windy conditions. Its routing is such that consecutive holes don’t face identical wind conditions. The greens provide approach options for windy conditions. Some of its greens accept low running shots. Others have hazards in front but no trouble to the rear. Only a couple are heavily guarded targets.

[Michael George]

I played Ballyneal this year and thought it was in great condition.  Do fescue greens mean a poor conditioning ranking?  Shouldn't be the case but sure looks like it based on these ratings.

I love Oakmont but they lose 7 greens and resulting have kept the greens a lot longer over the last year. Yet it is 2nd in conditioning?  

I think conditioning should be a factor in a category. Not its own category.  Conditioning is a pass/fail issue and so long as it meets the proper quality it does not have a dramatic enough impact to be its own category IMHO.

Question - what is Augusta National's impact on rating criteria. I have always wondered how they get enough ratings to be included yet they are always there.  Do you think they can impact the inclusion of conditioning as its own category knowing it will easily win that category.

[Jim Colton]

As I said somewhere else, I think Old Macdonald is the epitome of the Conditioning definition, yet there are 80 courses on the list ahead of it.

Anybody have any details on the Quarry at La Quinta. It has the 5th highest conditioning score, which seems to be the only reason it's in the top 100. It has the lowest shot value and resistance to scoring scores of any of the top 100 courses

Michael, I had once suggested to Ron that they make conditioning part of the ambience category, so one could judge whether the conditions added or detracted to the traditional values of game (presuming firm and fast was one of those values worth preserving). The suggestion was shot down.

[William_G]

Sven,

And, should I cease my plans to travel to Bandon Resort?  I like firm & fast courses, but they rated 79th (PD), 81st (OM), 91st (BD) and 94th (BT) on the Conditioning Scale (supposedly a measure of F&F).   How over-watered is that place?    Perhaps I should start looking for nicely browned courses like Muirfield Village (6th) and Alotian (7th).

hahahaha

[Mac Plumart]

Per Golf Digest's site...

Conditioning
 How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, and how firm yet receptive were the greens on the day you played the course?

I wonder if there is a broader definition in the Rater Handbook or online or somewhere?


But based on this definition and the numbers Sven posted, is it a stretch to say that this definition and those numbers don't fit?  They don't seem to fit to me.  Seems rather, the rater's are applying a different definition relative to the conditioning aspect of the rating.  If this is true, I don't think it is a stretch to say these lists are a charade.  And, therefore, diligent statistical analysis will not yield meaningful results.

[Sven Nilsen]

Mac:

Are you saying that GD is trying to pass off rotten tomatoes, moldy cheese and dried out basil as a $20 caprese salad?  Say it ain't so.

Sven

[Mac Plumart]

No.  No rotten tomatoes or moldy cheese.  


Simply the scores don't seem to fit the definition, therefore running calculations on bad data won't yield valid results.  In Jim's last posts, he said, "I think Old Macdonald is the epitome of the Conditioning definition, yet there are 80 courses on the list ahead of it."  That kinda gets to the heart of what I'm saying.

I'd LOVE to see a list of golf courses that embody an accurate scoring of Golf Digest's criteria, per their definition, but I don't see that happening.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Could someone list the entirety of the conditioning definition used by Golf Digest?

Sorry Mac, I misread your post.  That's what comes from doing two things at once.

CONDITIONING

Experts tell us a smart first step for any golf course is to cut back on water usage. Drier turf is usually healthier, less-susceptible
How fast, firm and rolling were the fairways, and how firm, yet receptive, were the greens on the date you played the course?
25
to diseases, and provides more roll to tee shots and smoother surfaces for putting. Less water means lower electric bills for high- volume pumps and less fuel for mowers used less often. Granted, the shade of turfgrass might be less intense.
To do our part, at the urging of some members of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, Golf Digest has redefined the Conditioning category used in our various course rankings. The old definition asked panelists, “How would you rate the playing quality of tees, fairways and greens when you last played the course?” The new definition now reads, “How fast, firm and rolling were the fairways, and how firm, yet receptive, were the greens on the date you played the course?”
This definition has nothing to do with the color of the grass or the perfection of a lie. It rewards courses that water less (but sensibly) and makes it easy for each panelist to evaluate conditions on the basis of golf shots. It takes into account all types of turfgrasses. Non-overseeded Bermuda fairways will be more firm and rolling than overseeded Bermuda, for example, and lean, off-green bent-grass fairways offer much more roll than saturated bent. Clearly, we don’t look kindly on greens that are thatchy or squishy, but we’re not in favor of concrete-hard greens. They must be firm, yet still receptive, to earn high points.
What about situations of inclement weather? Because the first rule of good golf architecture is drainage, drainage, drainage, this definition rewards that. A course whose fairways and greens don’t easily drain after a normal rain (or after routine irrigation) deserves lower conditioning scores than courses with excellent drainage.
Great conditioning is not striped mowing patterns in the rough, or uniform lies in bunkers. That’s overindulgent cosmetics. We think every club would benefit by adopting our definition as a standard for course conditioning.

[Mac Plumart]

Tommy...awesome!  Thanks!

GD guys...when was this definition changed?  Are the old numbers still in the system?

[Peter Ferlicca]

Living here in the Coachella Valley, the fact that the Quarry is ranked as the fifth best course in the country for conditioning is an absolute JOKE.  If golf digest is trying to go by the fast and firm quota they are advertising, they sure as hell are not following it.  I play Stone Eagle all the time, while the conditions are fantastic, it is a very dark lush green where you ball does not roll that often, same goes for Quarry.  Just like Tom Doak said, it is purely ranked on how fast the greens are rolling.  They could care less if they get any roll on their drives, heck if you have to bounce an approach shot in, they would probably knock points off for that.  Stone Eagle probably rolls around 11 during primetime season.  The Quarry on the other hand with their wet lush fairways has their flat pancake greens rolling at 13+ during primetime season, so that automatically makes it one of the best conditioned courses in the country.  Just like Jeremy Kinney said,  "enough said."  

It is amazing what the average consumer golfer thinks is good conditions.  Dark lush green grass, no roll in the fairway (heaven forbid your tee shot rolls into a fairway bunker), dark soft greens that hold a 4 iron, and greens that roll 13+ on the stimpmeter.  If you have those maintenance characteristics you will be good to go.  

[Jim Colton]

"It rewards courses that water less"

"We think every club would benefit by adopting our definition as a standard for course conditioning."

Whatever Golf Digest tried to accomplish with its definition change, it doesn't seem to be working. It's more like a scale from 1 to Augusta.

[John Kavanaugh]

"It rewards courses that water less"

"We think every club would benefit by adopting our definition as a standard for course conditioning."

Whatever Golf Digest tried to accomplish with its definition change, it doesn't seem to be working. It's more like a scale from 1 to Augusta.

Why do you remain on the Digest panel?  You seem to be walking an ethical tightrope.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Ratings for each course stay in the system for 8 years.  Conditioning scores do not remain that long but I can't remember exactly how many years they are in the system.  I want to say four but don't hold me to it.

[Andy Troeger]

Conditioning is an odd thing to rate because its so dynamic and dependent on time of year. Jim pointed out Old Mac as being the epitome of conditioning, but the greens were slow and bumpy when I played it--probably just because they were still new. The rest of the course was fine and certainly firmer than most even though it was the rainy season. The greens on the other three courses at Bandon were noticeably better. I'm sure others have played it when the greens were great--that's just the way it goes. If conditioning should be rated at all, it certainly isn't worth as many points to me as something like design variety.  

Pebble Beach's greens have the reputation for being better in the morning before a full day's play. Does the course deserve a better conditioning score if you happen to play it in the morning?

[Tom_Doak]

CONDITIONING

Experts tell us a smart first step for any golf course is to cut back on water usage. Drier turf is usually healthier, less-susceptible
to diseases, and provides more roll to tee shots and smoother surfaces for putting. Less water means lower electric bills for high- volume pumps and less fuel for mowers used less often. Granted, the shade of turfgrass might be less intense.
To do our part, at the urging of some members of the American Society of Golf Course Architects, Golf Digest has redefined the Conditioning category used in our various course rankings. The old definition asked panelists, “How would you rate the playing quality of tees, fairways and greens when you last played the course?” The new definition now reads, “How fast, firm and rolling were the fairways, and how firm, yet receptive, were the greens on the date you played the course?”
This definition has nothing to do with the color of the grass or the perfection of a lie. It rewards courses that water less (but sensibly) and makes it easy for each panelist to evaluate conditions on the basis of golf shots. It takes into account all types of turfgrasses. Non-overseeded Bermuda fairways will be more firm and rolling than overseeded Bermuda, for example, and lean, off-green bent-grass fairways offer much more roll than saturated bent. Clearly, we don’t look kindly on greens that are thatchy or squishy, but we’re not in favor of concrete-hard greens. They must be firm, yet still receptive, to earn high points.
What about situations of inclement weather? Because the first rule of good golf architecture is drainage, drainage, drainage, this definition rewards that. A course whose fairways and greens don’t easily drain after a normal rain (or after routine irrigation) deserves lower conditioning scores than courses with excellent drainage.
Great conditioning is not striped mowing patterns in the rough, or uniform lies in bunkers. That’s overindulgent cosmetics. We think every club would benefit by adopting our definition as a standard for course conditioning.

That's a lovely definition that they ought to actually employ.

Then again, they never really employed the old definition correctly, either.  Judging the playing condition of the greens, tees and fairways is actually a very good test, but instead the courses were judged on the basis of green speeds, color and extravagance.

By their NEW definition, Augusta National could not rate very highly at all.  It is the poster child for overseeding, and it's only firm and fast for about a month or two around The Masters ... over the winter months it is generally pretty wet, as Pat Mucci mentioned the other day on another thread.

Meanwhile, Maidstone, which went until two years ago without any fairway irrigation, ranks 100th out of 100.

[Keith OHalloran]

Tom Doak,
The funny thing is that I have heard members of Maidstone say that they put the irrigation in to help their ranking.

[Kevin Lynch]

Simply the scores don't seem to fit the definition, therefore running calculations on bad data won't yield valid results.  In Jim's last posts, he said, "I think Old Macdonald is the epitome of the Conditioning definition, yet there are 80 courses on the list ahead of it."  That kinda gets to the heart of what I'm saying.

I'd LOVE to see a list of golf courses that embody an accurate scoring of Golf Digest's criteria, per their definition, but I don't see that happening.

Mac -

I feel the same way. The way the criteria are defined and established is sound in theory.  And I think GD should be applauded simply for creating discussion about the elements that go into a great golf experience.  The expanded definitions posted by Tommy were very insightful.

Unfortunately, something is breaking down along the way.

Tommy gave some insight on the conditioning, as there could be some "residual" ratings using the former definition (which would be reasonable).

But, there is plenty of evidence that the independence of the criteria is compromised, and can't be easily dismissed as confusion over the definitions (especially in my Winged Foot example).  That may not be a startling insight into human nature, but it breaks down the "scientific & objective" appearance that GD wants.

[Joel_Stewart]

Tom Doak,
The funny thing is that I have heard members of Maidstone say that they put the irrigation in to help their ranking.

That's untrue.  They put it in after a severe summer drought a few years ago for emergency purposes. 

[Joel_Stewart]

Whatever Golf Digest tried to accomplish with its definition change, it doesn't seem to be working. It's more like a scale from 1 to Augusta.

I agree 100% but the problem lies in that most panelist do not understand or can't recognize the difference between different grasses.  I seriously doubt (and the numbers show) that courses with fescue, no matter how perfect, do not receive high scores.

[Jim Colton]

.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()