Conditioning

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let's talk about how the presence and effect of the Conditioning statistic, in any ranking, rewards private clubs' courses in a disproportionate way. That "top conditioning" list is all private courses. I wonder if there has been any discussion at Golf Digest about adding a caveat to the Conditioning definition that demands a much higher standard for the courses whose maintenance budgets are obviously orders of magnitude higher than those belonging to the courses played by the large majority of the golfing population. Why is there a secondary "Top 100 Public Courses" list but not a "Top 100 Private Courses" list? What if every list had to include 50 private courses and 50 publics?

What does any list of the top 100 courses in the country that includes private clubs do to the person toying with the idea of picking up the game? He/she sees that (by my quick count) 84 of the Top 100 are private, for all intents and purposes unplayable. What does that do to grow the game?

The latter two thisrds of the above mini-rant is OT, I guess, so what say we about the Conditioning bit?

Tim,

I understand your perspective, but look at it another way.

Look at it from a "quality of the product perspective."

If you're shopping for a used car, don't you "comparison" shop, looking for the better conditioned vehicle at the most reasonable/competitive price ?  ?  ?

Why should a golf course be any different ?
It's a commodity, just like a used car.

Instead of viewing "conditioning" as a negative, think of "conditioning" in the context of the quality of the playing surfaces.
Why wouldn't you want the best playing surfaces possible ?

As to budgets, you have to alter your mind set..
Let's take non-private.   Divide them into municipal and private ownership.
With a municipal course, where the golfers have no say and the "owner" thinks they have a captive audience, ergo they can present an inferior product, doesn't ranking courses by conditions create a pressure on the owner to improve the quality of the conditions (playing surfaces)

Same holds true for non-private with private ownership, it puts pressure on them to reinvest in the condition of the course.

I think your confusion on this issue, and the confusion on everyone's part, including Tom Doak is that you're confusing "conditioning" with "manicuring" and there's an enormous difference.

One is cosmetic, the other is agronomic focused on playing surfaces.

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, I get what you're saying. But as a reader, I prefer a Top 100 course list to be a real Top 100 course list, not a Top 100 courses as ranked equitably list.

I doubt the guys at Digest have discussed ranking conditions more stringently for privates. That just opens the door for way too much rater bias (a door that's probably already opened by the nature of rating courses in the first place). Especially in an economy that is handcuffing courses both public and private, it doesn't make sense to give private courses a handicap because of presumed higher funds.

I do think their new conditioning definition will help address the disparity you see, at least if they can get their panelists to follow it. It costs less money to use less water and cultivate true firm and fast conditions. It also takes more expertise from a superintendent to really tune those conditions in as opposed to simply dumping water on everything. Hopefully the courses with better supers get rewarded.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim, I get what you're saying. But as a reader, I prefer a Top 100 course list to be a real Top 100 course list, not a Top 100 courses as ranked equitably list.

I doubt the guys at Digest have discussed ranking conditions more stringently for privates. That just opens the door for way too much rater bias (a door that's probably already opened by the nature of rating courses in the first place). Especially in an economy that is handcuffing courses both public and private, it doesn't make sense to give private courses a handicap because of presumed higher funds.

Doesn't a quality product cost more than an inferior product ?

I do think their new conditioning definition will help address the disparity you see, at least if they can get their panelists to follow it. It costs less money to use less water and cultivate true firm and fast conditions.

Jason,

It takes considerably MORE money to transition to F&F with less water.

The notion that it costs less is a myth

It also takes more expertise from a superintendent to really tune those conditions in as opposed to simply dumping water on everything. Hopefully the courses with better supers get rewarded.

Agreed

[Jud_T]

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

This is really the crux of the issue.  

[Mac Plumart]

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

This is really the crux of the issue.  

BOOM!

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim, I get what you're saying. But as a reader, I prefer a Top 100 course list to be a real Top 100 course list, not a Top 100 courses as ranked equitably list.

I doubt the guys at Digest have discussed ranking conditions more stringently for privates. That just opens the door for way too much rater bias (a door that's probably already opened by the nature of rating courses in the first place). Especially in an economy that is handcuffing courses both public and private, it doesn't make sense to give private courses a handicap because of presumed higher funds.

I do think their new conditioning definition will help address the disparity you see, at least if they can get their panelists to follow it. It costs less money to use less water and cultivate true firm and fast conditions. It also takes more expertise from a superintendent to really tune those conditions in as opposed to simply dumping water on everything. Hopefully the courses with better supers get rewarded.

Jason--

Thanks for the response. A few comments/questions:

- I'm not sure I see a huge distinction as such between the phrases "real Top 100 course list" and "Top 100 courses as rated equitably list." If anything, I'd prefer the latter. By virtue of their being open to all golfers willing to pay the greens fee, public courses are of higher value to the game, especially now. That's not to say private clubs aren't awesome, but I think the intrinsic higher value of public courses on the whole gets sublimated when the Top 100 lists come out.

- If "true fast and firm conditions" come cheaper than the schemes that are currently practiced across the golf world, then this recent economic downturn will prove a blessing in disguise. It'll also be a saving grace for the hundreds of desert courses dealing with increasingly expensive water rights!

[John Kavanaugh]

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

This is really the crux of the issue.  

BOOM!

Mac,

How many Digest raters do you know?  The ones I know are not the bumbling baffoons that you and Jud want to paint them to be.

[Tim Gavrich]

Let's talk about how the presence and effect of the Conditioning statistic, in any ranking, rewards private clubs' courses in a disproportionate way. That "top conditioning" list is all private courses. I wonder if there has been any discussion at Golf Digest about adding a caveat to the Conditioning definition that demands a much higher standard for the courses whose maintenance budgets are obviously orders of magnitude higher than those belonging to the courses played by the large majority of the golfing population. Why is there a secondary "Top 100 Public Courses" list but not a "Top 100 Private Courses" list? What if every list had to include 50 private courses and 50 publics?

What does any list of the top 100 courses in the country that includes private clubs do to the person toying with the idea of picking up the game? He/she sees that (by my quick count) 84 of the Top 100 are private, for all intents and purposes unplayable. What does that do to grow the game?

The latter two thisrds of the above mini-rant is OT, I guess, so what say we about the Conditioning bit?

Tim,

I understand your perspective, but look at it another way.

Look at it from a "quality of the product perspective."

If you're shopping for a used car, don't you "comparison" shop, looking for the better conditioned vehicle at the most reasonable/competitive price ?  ?  ?

Why should a golf course be any different ?
It's a commodity, just like a used car.

I hear you there, but to turn your analogy back to golf, anyone could waltz up to the gate at Pine Valley or Augusta National and play. Obviously, that couldn't be farther from the truth, which affects the aptness of this analogy in my view.

Instead of viewing "conditioning" as a negative, think of "conditioning" in the context of the quality of the playing surfaces.
Why wouldn't you want the best playing surfaces possible ?

As to budgets, you have to alter your mind set..
Let's take non-private.   Divide them into municipal and private ownership.
With a municipal course, where the golfers have no say and the "owner" thinks they have a captive audience, ergo they can present an inferior product, doesn't ranking courses by conditions create a pressure on the owner to improve the quality of the conditions (playing surfaces)

Same holds true for non-private with private ownership, it puts pressure on them to reinvest in the condition of the course.

I wouldn't say I view the entire idea of conditioning as such in a negative way. More or less, I'm arguing that private courses--particularly the ones that vie for inclusion on Top 100 lists, have budgets and entrenched agronomic practices that put them at a disproportionate advantage over public courses, which is reflected in the fact that 84 of the top 100 per GD are private. I wonder if everyone--the list, the reader (who is unlikely to play more than a tiny handful of the courses on that list) and the game itself--wouldn't benefit from a little equitability.

I think your confusion on this issue, and the confusion on everyone's part, including Tom Doak is that you're confusing "conditioning" with "manicuring" and there's an enormous difference.

One is cosmetic, the other is agronomic focused on playing surfaces.

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

As has already been said, this is absolutely one of the main issues with the public perception of what constitutes good golf. I think the general maintenance scheme supported by this site and its contributors is far, far better than the common perception of properly tended grounds for golf, and I daresay the collective power of this group is reflected in positive changes in golf course maintenance.

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, do Top 100 Public lists do it for you? Or is it important to see where those publics rate in comparison to privates? And if the latter, then doesn't an equitable system as opposed to an equal one actually stop that comparison from happening, since the public courses are starting with an advantage?

[Mac Plumart]

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

This is really the crux of the issue.  

BOOM!

Mac,

How many Digest raters do you know?  The ones I know are not the bumbling baffoons that you and Jud want to paint them to be.

Bumbling baffoons?  

You said that, not me!

I asked, awhile ago and I think on this thread, when the definition of this aspect of the ratings had changed.  I think this holds one of the keys to the problems with the scores, as I suspect some of the older scores might be still in the numbers.  

But I also think trying to scientificially rank courses with precisely judged numerical inputs is not possible and, therefore, a flaw in the GD process.  Which seems to be being verified right now.

I think the concept behind their process has some validity, but I doubt "good" data can be collected.

 

[Jud_T]

Mac,

How many Digest raters do you know?  The ones I know are not the bumbling baffoons that you and Jud want to paint them to be.

No.  They just come off that way from participating in a flawed process.

[Tim Gavrich]

Tim, do Top 100 Public lists do it for you? Or is it important to see where those publics rate in comparison to privates? And if the latter, then doesn't an equitable system as opposed to an equal one actually stop that comparison from happening, since the public courses are starting with an advantage?

Jason--

Personally, I wouldn't object to separate lists--one for private clubs and one for non-private ones. I realize that that might breed argument about how to distinguish between different types of non-private courses, but I'd prefer that to the current system, the more I think on it.

And even then, as I feel is the case now, the rankings should be taken not as Gospel but as generalized ballpark-type efforts. It's great to be able to show and celebrate the great golf courses out there, but the hair-splitting always seems never-ending. Plus, bias and egocentrism are hard to kill, and that's not always a bad thing. If a handful of clubs have vocal, ardent supporters then it's first and foremost a testament to the quality of the place with respect to its members.

[Paul Gray]

So my question regarding these lists is:  are they really focused on the quality of the playing surfaces or on the cosmetics ?

This is really the crux of the issue.  

BOOM!

A very astute point Mr Mucci and, whilst I'll not comment specifically on Golf Digest, a point widely applicable to the golfing masses as a whole.

I need to lie down.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

I think your quest for equality ignores the historical context of how golf/golf courses evolved in America.

Even today, great courses aren't being developed at the municipal level as much as they are the private level.

WHY ?

Because visionaries who love golf developed those courses, visionaries with a sense/quest for great architecture, not public servants/bureaucrats.

Jack Lupton, Lowell Schulman, Dick Youngscap, Ken Bakst, Mike Keiser, Roger Hansen, the O'Neals and others had a vision and pursued it.

What's the motivation behind a municipal project ?

Look at how golf evolved in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach, and Pebble Beach.

It's the entrepreneurial, creative individual who's the inspiration and guiding force behind the great courses in America, not town administrators.

[Jud_T]

Tim,

You have a public list and a combo list, so you can iterate the private list. 

[Jim Colton]

Conditioning aside, there are still probably four private courses to every one top 100 public course. I think the 100th ranked course they publish would rank around 500th overall

[jeffwarne]

The whole "conditioning" thing is part of the issues golf faces today.

I played a public course on Long Island two days ago, leftover snow on the ground in many spots, including one area two feet away from the pin.(you had the option to play from snow for an extra "snowie")
The pins were in the exact same places they were a month ago when I last played there.
The greens hadn't been cut in 6 weeks.

Being winter, the turf hadn't grown much, the ground was somewhat frozen, yet the turf was wet from melted snow.
I can't think of one spot where my shot was affected by the "conditions", other than having to allow for a firm first bounce, and putting a little exra zip on putts due to the somehwhat fuzzy greens.(that and putting a long tee in the ground was difficult)

Nearly all courses I play in the UK, other than a couple "modern" faux links are in this condition.a bit fuzzy, off color, and firmish.
You evaluate you lie,choose a club, hit it and move on.  and repeat.

I'm always stunned when I play with a pro and the first word I hear on #1 is "we're rolling it today, right fellas"

[Tom_Doak]

The whole "conditioning" thing is part of the issues golf faces today.

I played a public course on Long Island two days ago, leftover snow on the ground in many spots, including one area two feet away from the pin.(you had the option to play from snow for an extra "snowie")
The pins were in the exact same places they were a month ago when I last played there.
The greens hadn't been cut in 6 weeks.

Being winter, the turf hadn't grown much, the ground was somewhat frozen, yet the turf was wet from melted snow.
I can't think of one spot where my shot was affected by the "conditions", other than having to allow for a firm first bounce, and putting a little exra zip on putts due to the somehwhat fuzzy greens.(that and putting a long tee in the ground was difficult)

Nearly all courses I play in the UK, other than a couple "modern" faux links are in this condition.a bit fuzzy, off color, and firmish.
You evaluate you lie,choose a club, hit it and move on.  and repeat.

I'm always stunned when I play with a pro and the first word I hear on #1 is "we're rolling it today, right fellas"

Amen to all of that.

We all played golf thirty years ago and it was just great.  So, the idea that courses need to be maintained in the condition they are today is demonstrably wrong.  If they needed to be anywhere near that good, the game would never have gotten started. 

Patrick is the perfect example of this dichotomy -- understanding it's wrong, and yet going on and on about how great the condition of his home course is and how the neighbors, though they are better courses, fall short because they don't spend as many $$$$$$$$$$ on conditioning.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The whole "conditioning" thing is part of the issues golf faces today.

I played a public course on Long Island two days ago, leftover snow on the ground in many spots, including one area two feet away from the pin.(you had the option to play from snow for an extra "snowie")
The pins were in the exact same places they were a month ago when I last played there.
The greens hadn't been cut in 6 weeks.

Being winter, the turf hadn't grown much, the ground was somewhat frozen, yet the turf was wet from melted snow.
I can't think of one spot where my shot was affected by the "conditions", other than having to allow for a firm first bounce, and putting a little exra zip on putts due to the somehwhat fuzzy greens.(that and putting a long tee in the ground was difficult)

Jeff, alot of what you say is predicated upon your expectations.

You weren't expecting pristine conditions with the greens stimping at 10.

You were playing "winter" golf.

If you went to a course in Florida instead, where it's 80 and sunny, and you paid $ 100 and you were presented with those conditions, don't tell me that you would have been a happy and satisfied camper.

Nearly all courses I play in the UK, other than a couple "modern" faux links are in this condition.a bit fuzzy, off color, and firmish.
You evaluate you lie,choose a club, hit it and move on.  and repeat.

That's more of a cultural headset, again, you're not expecting great conditions in the UK, so your expectations have been met.

If you went to ANGC in April, Pine Valley in September or Seminole in March, would you revel in those conditions ?
I think not.

I'm always stunned when I play with a pro and the first word I hear on #1 is "we're rolling it today, right fellas"

It's all about expectations and wanting ideal conditions.

I enjoy tight, firm and fast fairways and greens and if Mother Nature co-operates, I have a reasonable expectation that I should have them  presented to me if I'm paying a hefty price to play the course, as a member or a guest.

Again, it's a question of presenting the best playing surfaces possible versus cosmetics.

I don't care much about cosmetics, I do care about the playing surfaces.

[jeffwarne]

The whole "conditioning" thing is part of the issues golf faces today.

I played a public course on Long Island two days ago, leftover snow on the ground in many spots, including one area two feet away from the pin.(you had the option to play from snow for an extra "snowie")
The pins were in the exact same places they were a month ago when I last played there.
The greens hadn't been cut in 6 weeks.

Being winter, the turf hadn't grown much, the ground was somewhat frozen, yet the turf was wet from melted snow.
I can't think of one spot where my shot was affected by the "conditions", other than having to allow for a firm first bounce, and putting a little exra zip on putts due to the somehwhat fuzzy greens.(that and putting a long tee in the ground was difficult)

Nearly all courses I play in the UK, other than a couple "modern" faux links are in this condition.a bit fuzzy, off color, and firmish.
You evaluate you lie,choose a club, hit it and move on.  and repeat.

I'm always stunned when I play with a pro and the first word I hear on #1 is "we're rolling it today, right fellas"

Amen to all of that.

We all played golf thirty years ago and it was just great.  So, the idea that courses need to be maintained in the condition they are today is demonstrably wrong.  If they needed to be anywhere near that good, the game would never have gotten started. 

Patrick is the perfect example of this dichotomy -- understanding it's wrong, and yet going on and on about how great the condition of his home course is and how the neighbors, though they are better courses, fall short because they don't spend as many $$$$$$$$$$ on conditioning.

Tom,
I'll take it a step farther.
Thirty years ago the height of cut was higher, the average played could get a club on the ball, and the better player had to consider a flier.
Now the grass is so short, the average player can't hit it, despite his $300 low COG hybrid, because the ball is sitting virtually on dirt, yet the better player spins it exactly due to zero grass/face interference, and has better distance control than ever, all because agronomy has advanced, and supers can.

Other than the availability of the right modern drivers, I don't think golf is ANY easier for the average guy than it was 30 years ago.
I remember a salty pro friend of mine playing The Bridge and commenting that the more money you pay to join a club, the LESS grass you get to hit off

[jeffwarne]

color=green]

Jeff, alot of what you say is predicated upon your expectations.

You weren't expecting pristine conditions with the greens stimping at 10.

You were playing "winter" golf.

If you went to a course in Florida instead, where it's 80 and sunny, and you paid $ 100 and you were presented with those conditions, don't tell me that you would have been a happy and satisfied camper.[/color]

Nearly all courses I play in the UK, other than a couple "modern" faux links are in this condition.a bit fuzzy, off color, and firmish.
You evaluate you lie,choose a club, hit it and move on.  and repeat.

That's more of a cultural headset, again, you're not expecting great conditions in the UK, so your expectations have been met.

If you went to ANGC in April, Pine Valley in September or Seminole in March, would you revel in those conditions ?
I think not.

I'm always stunned when I play with a pro and the first word I hear on #1 is "we're rolling it today, right fellas"

It's all about expectations and wanting ideal conditions.

.

That just made my point exactly, for some IT is all about expectations and wanting ideal conditions,and often to show their friend how big their johnson is (green speeds)
For me it's about the golf, which is why I'll take those UK courses exactly as they are (or were- many are installing irrigation and upping greenspeeds ) over the others mentioned every time, because those who frequent them are all about the GOLF, and not the course conditions.
and I'm pretty biased about ANGC

[Patrick_Mucci]

Amen to all of that.

We all played golf thirty years ago and it was just great.

That's because the conditions 30 years ago reflected the demands of the market at the time, but, we're not back 30 years ago.
We don't have the luxury of being in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of our peer world 

So, the idea that courses need to be maintained in the condition they are today is demonstrably wrong. 

Not in the context of comparitive analysis.
If most or all of the peer courses are maintained to a certain standard, targeting conditions well below that standard would have a deliterious impact on the club's ability to attract and retain members

If they needed to be anywhere near that good, the game would never have gotten started. 

You can't compare old world conditions to modern day expectations.
You can't ask golfers to ignore what they see and experience today in favor of conditions from a century ago, it's unrealistic.

Patrick is the perfect example of this dichotomy -- understanding it's wrong, and yet going on and on about how great the condition of his home course is and how the neighbors, though they are better courses, fall short because they don't spend as many $$$$$$$$$$ on conditioning.

A few corrections.
I can assure you that the neighboring courses aren't better than my home course, be it in Long Island, NJ or FL.

Second, I never said it was wrong.  
I differentiated between the condition of the playing surfaces and manicuring.  
Perhaps you overlooked that part.

For decades, Maidstone and Somerset Hills thought it was "chic" to ignore conditions and by that I mean the quality of the playing surfaces.
Seeing as how I've been playing SHCC for close to 60 years, and not just retained by them recently, I think I'm more than qualified to comment on the state of their golf course over those last 60 years.  I'm certainly no "Johnny come lately" in terms of my experience and observations at SHCC.

Maidstone and SHCC represented a departure, in terms of the quality of their playing surfaces, from their nearby peers.
Plainfield, Baltusrol, Ridgewood, Hackensack, Suburban, Preakness Hills, Montclair, Essex Fells, Hollywood and many other courses presented better playing surfaces than SHCC, which was perceived as an "eccentric" old monied course.

But, recently, SHCC has seen the light.
They've removed the trees that had been allowed to grow, unabated for decades and the course is significantly better for it.
Clover and weeds no longer populate the putting surfaces and fairway and green speeds are commensurate with their neighbors.

I don't see anything over the top about the current conditions at SHCC.

As to money, that was never an issue at Maidstone and SHCC, they've got plenty of it, they just never spent it with an eye toward providing improved or optimal playing surfaces.  That was a cultural, not a financial choice.

So before you go making ill informed statements, I'd suggest that you do a little more research and read my posts more carefully.

[Andy Troeger]

Mac,

How many Digest raters do you know?  The ones I know are not the bumbling baffoons that you and Jud want to paint them to be.

No.  They just come off that way from participating in a flawed process.

Jud,
We get it--you don't like the list or the process. You don't have to repeat a different version of the same one-liner 20 times on different threads. I can call your way of looking at courses "flawed" too--doesn't make either one of us right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

That just made my point exactly, for some IT is all about expectations and wanting ideal conditions,and often to show their friend how big their johnson is (green speeds)



Yes, there's an element of that in golf, but, you're ignoring Tom Paul's "maintenance meld", the blending of the architecture with the condition of the playing surfaces.

You can't have it both ways.

If you want F&F fairways and greens, you have to pay for it.
If you want the conditions to integrate with the architecture, you have to pay for it.

Do you really want to putt on the 1st, 3rd and 6th green at NGLA with those greens stimping at 6 ?
Do you really want your ball to hit and stop because the fairways are mowed at 1" ?

Again, there's a difference between the quality of the playing surfaces and "manicuring"

I like playing a course where I get roll, where I can approach aerially or along the ground, depending upon circumstances.


For me it's about the golf, which is why I'll take those UK courses exactly as they are (or were many are installing irrigation and upping greenspeeds ) over the others mentioned every time, because those who frequent them are all about the GOLF, and not the course conditions.

Jeff, that's really absurd.
How can you compare the soil and weather conditions in the UK to Westchester, NJ, PA, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, Kansas, Arizona, etc. etc..

You're talking about a land mass, surrounded by sea, that's about the size of Maine, NH, VT, MA, RI and CT

What's really absurd is Tom Doak, the architect for Sebonack, talking about moderation in conditions and budgets.  
If you've played Sebonack, you know how ludicrous that position is.   YIKES

[Jud_T]

Andy,

Do you feel Digest's current set of criteria is a positive or negative influence on the game and it's playing fields?