Are course conditions too perfect?

[Paul Rudovsky]

Having played literally hundreds of different courses over the past 3-4 years, I am amazed at the phenomenal improvements in course conditions (especially in the USA but also true throughout the world).  Reasons include (1) new hybrid versions of bent, bermuda, and zoysia grasses, (2) improved computer controlled sprinkler systems, (3) significantly smarter and more highly trained greens superintendents, etc etc


But frankly I am wondering if things have gone too far.  Greens now are simply perfect and many many courses (except when know nothing players fail to repair their ball marks or do so incorrectly), and I am not just talking about the creek de la creme clubs.  Every putt rolls perfectly even when poorly struck and lies in the fairway look like the ball is teed up. 


I think we are losing something here.  The game of golf is supposed to simulate life...and in life we get bad bounces.  Part of life's test is how we react to bad (and good) bounces...and that should remain part of golf's test.  If you disagree, first ask yourself the following question...do you prefer playing in the USA of the British Isles (where course conditions are generally far "inferior" to conditions here.

[Tom_Doak]

When I was out at The Sheep Ranch a year ago I noticed a patch of knotweed at the edge of one of the fairways.  I did a double-take on it, because I realized I had not encountered knotweed on a golf course in at least ten years, and maybe twenty ... but I remember it well from my early days in the game.


Is that a good thing?  Ask the question a different way:  do a lot of people find golf too expensive to play often?  Because eliminating knotweed [and all of the other things that go into perfect conditioning] are one of the main reasons golf is expensive.

[Joe Zucker]

This is a very interesting thought that I had not considered before.  I agree with much of the sentiment, but two small things I (partly) disagree with:


1) I don't think the improved fairway conditions have made the ball sit up.  Shorter and shorter cuts have made the ball sit practically on the ground.  Chipping off extremely tight lies is really hard and essentially makes the putter the only option in many cases.


2) Is golf really "supposed" to simulate life?  A lot of the lessons you learn on the course can be applied to life, but I'm not sure the goal of the game should be to simulate life.  If that were true, every match should arbitrarily select one person  and give him a 10 shot advantage to simulate what it's like to be born in the US or UK vs Ethiopia or Kenya.


Well designed courses still have plenty of "luck" even if they are well maintained. The difference between an easy chip and hard chip may only be a couple yards if there is a well placed obstacle.  Skill and experience can help a player avoid some of these hard or unlucky spots.  However, 99% of us have a margin of error that is more than 5 yards wide so we will still find our ball in bad spots that are only a few steps away from being good.  I don't think there will be a shortage of hard or challenging shots on well maintained courses if the greens are near perfect.  Perhaps players might be more likely to appreciate the green if they aren't complaining about the spike mark that knocked their putt off line.


It may sounds like I completely disagree with the sentiment, but I do not.  There should be a balance between having the opportunity to overcome bad bounces and creating a perfectly conditioned course. 

[David Wuthrich]

Paul,
I agree that bounces are part of the game that players should have to deal with.  Everyone expects perfect and that is just not how the game should be.
That is why it is so much fun to watch The Open Championship.  I can still see JS's reaction as he saw where his opening tee shot landed and how he had to deal with it the rest of his round.
Don't get me wrong, I love great conditions.  But great does not always mean everything has to be perfect, if that makes sense!!

[Pete Lavallee]

Paul,

Out of those 100 courses how many had a green fee under $50? I realize you travel to play the best and fantastic conditioning is part of that equation.

However, don't fret; even on the muni side conditions are better than ever. I think one huge factor especially here in So. Cal where Poa Annua is so prevalent is the use of growth retardants like Primo. Cauliflower like seed heads sprouting on the greens are a thing of the past. Most courses water less, likely due to newer irrigation systems that allow for individual heads to be turned on, saving water and leading to the firm and fast maintenance meld we all love so much here on GCA.

[Peter Pallotta]

Those who played Pebble or Pine Valley in the 70s can look back and compare the conditions, then and now. But I wonder if in absolute (as opposed to relative) terms anyone who played the top publics and privates 40 years ago thought - at the time - the conditions anything less than ideal. Did folks playing NGLA or Pinehurst #2 back then think: 'great architecture, too bad the conditioning isn't on par'?
Peter

[Mike Sweeney]

I played a Doak 0 today. The greens were in great shape.


Ignore the conditioning, bad architecture is bad

[jeffwarne]

Too perfect? no such thing
Brora is perfect
Goat Hill in a drought perfect
Kington perfect-still can't get over how awesome the sheep mown "fairways" and grass bunkers are. Is there a better tool for cutting rumply fairways and hard edged man made features?




Are many courses too manicured and overmaintained? absolutely

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played the Quarry at La Quinta last year with the head pro. He told me that the owner has a standing offer: if you find a weed you get a free membership. The caddies even picked up the divots so they wouldn't be seen lying around on the course.

[Tom_Doak]

I played the Quarry at La Quinta last year with the head pro. He told me that the owner has a standing offer: if you find a weed you get a free membership.

I would not want to be the superintendent there!

[Tom_Doak]

Those who played Pebble or Pine Valley in the 70s can look back and compare the conditions, then and now. But I wonder if in absolute (as opposed to relative) terms anyone who played the top publics and privates 40 years ago thought - at the time - the conditions anything less than ideal. Did folks playing NGLA or Pinehurst #2 back then think: 'great architecture, too bad the conditioning isn't on par'?
Peter

Absolutely, yes.  Pebble Beach was notorious for not being in great shape.  Cypress Point had essentially dirt between some tees and the start of the fairways ... I was always impressed with them not fussing about the out of play areas.  And one of the reasons NGLA was derided in the 1970's and early 80's was that it was in very poor shape ... it was so bad that people couldn't even see the underlying interest in it.


P.S. Conditions in the UK and Ireland were pretty rough in the early 1980's, too, but it was hard to complain when the green fees were $15 - $20.

[Tom_Doak]

The game of golf is supposed to simulate life...and in life we get bad bounces.  Part of life's test is how we react to bad (and good) bounces...

Now that I think about it, the memberships at some of these clubs are trying diligently to eliminate bad bounces in life, too ... for themselves and their friends, if not for the public at large.

[Bill Brightly]

Of course things have "gone too far" but there is no turning back. As I see it, in the United States the private clubs are in a life or death struggle for members. Top tier clubs with the resources to maintain pristine conditions will do so and this will further separate themselves from the middle-tier private clubs, and they will use this advantage continue to attract members from those clubs.


I am a member of a club that provides superb turf quality. Roughs, fairways and greens are all incredibly good. Over the past 12 years, we've also invested heavily in drainage, tree removal, sanding, and a new 5-row sprinkler system.  I recently played at nearby club that was always considered to be our pier, except they are down to 220 members. While their greens are excellent,I   was shocked at the condition of their fairways and roughs. It made me sad because I know they are doing the best they can with limited resources.


So there is a bit of an "arms race" going on in the private club market. We might have an interesting argument on GCA.COM about the fun of playing courses with random lies, "get down with brown" etc. But we are a small bunch of kooks. The vast majority of golfers will be drawn to courses that offer "perfect" conditions. I think the genie is out of the bottle.

[BCowan]

When I was out at The Sheep Ranch a year ago I noticed a patch of knotweed at the edge of one of the fairways.  I did a double-take on it, because I realized I had not encountered knotweed on a golf course in at least ten years, and maybe twenty ... but I remember it well from my early days in the game.


Is that a good thing?  Ask the question a different way:  do a lot of people find golf too expensive to play often?  Because eliminating knotweed [and all of the other things that go into perfect conditioning] are one of the main reasons golf is expensive.

Tom,

You need to venture out and go play Champion Hills.  Golf has never been cheaper for 90% of golfers.  Knotweed is a very poor analogy and completely insignificant.

 Are bunkers, green entrances, and tees overdone at top tier tracks, yes.  However maint is grossly overrepresented in a top tiers total annual budget as the cause IMO. Some of these new grasses cut water usage by 40% and the amount of apps used, but that doesn't seem to get applauded. Having great greens and fairways should be strived for.  A close friends asst got his first head keeper position this year at a course I have a range membership. He has the greens rolling great and happy customers with a full parking lot on the weekends.  He has greatly improved the conditions. He does this on 1/4 of the budget he had as an asst elsewhere.  We can offer a much better product for $30-40 tracks then ever before. 
 
 

[Tom Bacsanyi]

I played a Doak 0 today. The greens were in great shape.


Ignore the conditioning, bad architecture is bad

Make the fairway bunker all one bunker instead of 3, shift the fronting greenside bunker to the left so it only covers half the green, widening the approach and I think it's a fine golf hole.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

You need to venture out and go play Champion Hills.  Golf has never been cheaper for 90% of golfers.  Knotweed is a very poor analogy and completely insignificant.

Ben:


Golf was fun even back when there was knotweed. 


I appreciate that there are many superintendents who can maintain very good conditions on minimal budgets.


There are plenty of low-cost golf courses in northern Michigan, but in large part that's because of oversupply and desperation.  Ask their owners how they are doing.

[BCowan]

Tom,

You need to venture out and go play Champion Hills.  Golf has never been cheaper for 90% of golfers.  Knotweed is a very poor analogy and completely insignificant.

Ben:


Golf was fun even back when there was knotweed. 


I appreciate that there are many superintendents who can maintain very good conditions on minimal budgets.


There are plenty of low-cost golf courses in northern Michigan, but in large part that's because of oversupply and desperation.  Ask their owners how they are doing.

 I agree with u there are too many northern michigan tracks, but knotweed is their last problem. Golf is always fun, especially when it's firm. U need to play Champion, many downers like it.  They are managing fine I hear. 


I haven't been to the land down under but I like their meld from afar. Fairways and greens seem to get the most attention and they let rough go, am I wrong?  I think triple row irrigation would be less popular if all those evergreens were never planted in the 50s and 60s. 

[Tom_Doak]

I haven't been to the land down under but I like their meld from afar. Fairways and greens seem to get the most attention and they let rough go, am I wrong?  I think triple row irrigation would be less popular if all those evergreens were never planted in the 50s and 60s.

The Sand Belt courses in Melbourne are probably the best-conditioned courses in the world.  Perfect climate for couch (bermuda) fairways and bentgrass greens ... hot and dry in summer, moderate rain in winter.  And yes, they let things go native once you get off the fairway.

[John Kirk]

Thought I'd share this joke (or story) I just happened to read.  It's titled "God and Lawn Care":

GOD to ST. FRANCIS:
Frank ,  You know all about gardens and nature. What in the world is going on down there on the planet?  What happened to the dandelions, violets, milkweeds and stuff I started eons ago? I had a perfect no-maintenance garden plan. Those plants grow in any type of soil, withstand drought and multiply with abandon. The nectar from the long-lasting blossoms attracts butterflies, honey bees and flocks of songbirds. I expected to see a vast garden of colors by now. But, all I see are these green rectangles.

St. FRANCIS:
It's the tribes that settled there, Lord. The Suburbanites.
They started calling your flowers 'weeds' and went to
great lengths to kill them and replace them with grass.

GOD:
Grass? But, it's so boring. It's not colorful. It doesn't attract butterflies, birds and bees; only grubs and sod worms. It's sensitive to temperatures. Do these Suburbanites really want all that grass growing there?

ST. FRANCIS:
Apparently so, Lord. They go to great pains to grow it and keep it green. They begin each spring by fertilizing grass and poisoning any other plant that crops up in the lawn.

GOD:
The spring rains and warm weather probably make grass grow really fast. That must make the Suburbanites happy.

ST. FRANCIS:
Apparently not, Lord. As soon as it grows a little, they cut it-sometimes twice a week.

GOD:
They cut it? Do they then bale it like hay?

ST. FRANCIS:
Not exactly, Lord. Most of them rake it up and put it in bags.

GOD:
They bag it? Why? Is it a cash crop? Do they sell it?

ST. FRANCIS:
No, Sir, just the opposite. They pay to throw it away.

GOD:
Now, let me get this straight. They fertilize grass so it will grow. And, when it does grow, they cut it off and pay to throw it away?

ST. FRANCIS:
Yes, Sir.

GOD:
These Suburbanites must be relieved in the summer when we cut back on the rain and turn up the heat. That surely slows the growth and saves them a lot of work.

ST. FRANCIS:
You aren't going to believe this, Lord. When the grass stops growing so fast, they drag out hoses and pay more money to water it, so they can continue to mow it and pay to get rid of it.

GOD:
What nonsense. At least they kept some of the trees. That was a sheer stroke of genius, if I do say so myself. The trees grow leaves in the spring to provide beauty and shade in the summer. In the autumn, they fall to the ground and form a natural blanket to keep moisture in the soil and protect the trees and bushes. It's a natural cycle of life.

ST. FRANCIS:
You better sit down, Lord. The Suburbanites have drawn a new circle. As soon as the leaves fall, they rake them into great piles and pay to have them hauled away.

GOD:
No!? What do they do to protect the shrub and tree roots in the winter to keep the soil moist and loose?

ST. FRANCIS:
After throwing away the leaves, they go out and buy something which they call mulch. They haul it home and spread it around in place of the leaves.

GOD:
And where do they get this mulch?

ST. FRANCIS:
They cut down trees and grind them up to make the mulch.

GOD:
Enough! I don't want to think about this anymore. St. Catherine, you're in charge of the arts. What movie have you scheduled for us tonight?

ST. CATHERINE:
'Dumb and Dumber', Lord. It's a story about....
 
GOD:
Never mind, I think I just heard the whole story from St. Francis.

[Sean_A]

Having played literally hundreds of different courses over the past 3-4 years, I am amazed at the phenomenal improvements in course conditions (especially in the USA but also true throughout the world).  Reasons include (1) new hybrid versions of bent, bermuda, and zoysia grasses, (2) improved computer controlled sprinkler systems, (3) significantly smarter and more highly trained greens superintendents, etc etc


But frankly I am wondering if things have gone too far.  Greens now are simply perfect and many many courses (except when know nothing players fail to repair their ball marks or do so incorrectly), and I am not just talking about the creek de la creme clubs.  Every putt rolls perfectly even when poorly struck and lies in the fairway look like the ball is teed up. 


I think we are losing something here.  The game of golf is supposed to simulate life...and in life we get bad bounces.  Part of life's test is how we react to bad (and good) bounces...and that should remain part of golf's test.  If you disagree, first ask yourself the following question...do you prefer playing in the USA of the British Isles (where course conditions are generally far "inferior" to conditions here.

Paul


In my GB&I experience conditions may have improved, but I wouldn't say things have gone too far by a long shot.  It is rare, at most a few times a year, where I think a course is in perfect nick...and that is probably how it should be if too much money isn't being spent to out-battle mother nature.  However, it is rare that I think a course is in poor condition.  But I accept that there is a huge jump in cost from going to 9ish greens to 10.5ish greens, from 40 bunkers to 80 bunkers and from 30 yard fairways to 50 yard fairways.  The simple question...is the the cost worth the benefit?  The bottom line for me is unless a club has more money than it knows what to do with, then the changing weather dictates conditions.  I adjust my expectations according and to the green fee.  I am often surprised at how mediocre top clubs in GB&I present their courses...often times no better than than a club charging half the green fee. It will always be thus...folks pay just as much premium for reputation as they do for quality and conditions.  These days I am finding with the skills of greenkeepers of the have not clubs often do very well in the keeping game. 


Ciao 

[Paul Rudovsky]

Sean--


Was comparing USA today to GB&I today, not GB&I years ago with GB&I years ago.  Everyone I know says GB&I golf today is more fun than USA golf today...and no question that the condition of USA courses today is better than the condition GB&I courses today.  And btw, i'd bet the average fairway width in GB&I is wider than in the USA


I think part of the "test" of the game of golf is dealing w bad breaks and good breaks..it is part of the game and is being eliminated slowly but surely.  Also, perfect greens mean you don't have to roll the ball well...even mishits do not bounce. That takes away some of the skill test just like today's ball technology eliminated the advantage of being able to move the ball both ways. 


There is a "war" of perfection going on.


Joe Zucker--


I think there is difference between bad results because the player tried to hit a shot not statistically within their capabilities (that is a bad risk/reward bet) and a bad result of hitting it down the middle, and getting a nutty bounce or landing in a divot.  I actually think some of the latter is good...and part of the "test"...and am worried that we are trying to eliminate it.


And regarding a 10 stroke adjustment for where you were born and other factors (quality of instruction and equipment, basic coordination, amount of practice, etc.), isn't that what the handicap system does?


Paul

[Mark_Fine]

I have told this story here before but for the sake of this thread will tell it again.  Years ago (probably going on 20 now) I played Royal Birkdale quite of few months before the British Open was to be played there.  I was with a friend who was a member and asked him what they do to get ready for the tournament?  He looked at me funny like he didn't understand the question. I said again what do they do to prepare the course for the tournament?  He said, "well they might throw a little seed on the greens, they put up the stands, they open up the back tees and let the boys have a go! 

My how things have changed and yes courses can be "over maintained" if that is what you mean by too perfect.  Personally if I saw a links course the was lush, soft and green due to over watering, I would prefer not to play it and would down grade its condition.  I know I am going to have a good day on a links course when I toss my ball down on the ground and it bounces back up to me.

No one likes "bad" conditions especially greens that roll poorly but it is all relative.  Augusta and TV are two of the primary culprits/causes of why we are where we are today. 

[Sean_A]

Sean--


Was comparing USA today to GB&I today, not GB&I years ago with GB&I years ago.  Everyone I know says GB&I golf today is more fun than USA golf today...and no question that the condition of USA courses today is better than the condition GB&I courses today.  And btw, i'd bet the average fairway width in GB&I is wider than in the USA


I think part of the "test" of the game of golf is dealing w bad breaks and good breaks..it is part of the game and is being eliminated slowly but surely.  Also, perfect greens mean you don't have to roll the ball well...even mishits do not bounce. That takes away some of the skill test just like today's ball technology eliminated the advantage of being able to move the ball both ways. 


There is a "war" of perfection going on.


Joe Zucker--


I think there is difference between bad results because the player tried to hit a shot not statistically within their capabilities (that is a bad risk/reward bet) and a bad result of hitting it down the middle, and getting a nutty bounce or landing in a divot.  I actually think some of the latter is good...and part of the "test"...and am worried that we are trying to eliminate it.


And regarding a 10 stroke adjustment for where you were born and other factors (quality of instruction and equipment, basic coordination, amount of practice, etc.), isn't that what the handicap system does?


Paul

Paul

Gotchya.  If we are comparing GB&I to USA ya have to compare like with like and figure out what good conditioning is...many disagree.  Generally, there is no question the US blows the doors off GB&I for parkland conditions, but then there aren't many parkland courses in GB&I which are considered top dogs...hence the like for like comment.  I would also add that for large sections of the US the courses are not open 12 months of the year...that makes a huge difference (or at least it should) in expectations and opportunity.  Honestly, I don't think it is helpful to generally compare the two. 

I hope the war isn't for perfection, but better conditions through more efficient and better practices which eventually is more sustainable and cheaper.

Ciao

[Joe Zucker]

Joe Zucker--


I think there is difference between bad results because the player tried to hit a shot not statistically within their capabilities (that is a bad risk/reward bet) and a bad result of hitting it down the middle, and getting a nutty bounce or landing in a divot.  I actually think some of the latter is good...and part of the "test"...and am worried that we are trying to eliminate it.


And regarding a 10 stroke adjustment for where you were born and other factors (quality of instruction and equipment, basic coordination, amount of practice, etc.), isn't that what the handicap system does?


Paul

Paul,  I agree with you that the challenge of a difficult shot and the challenge of overcoming a bad lie/bounce are different.  The way tour pros react to finding their ball in a divot vs in the trees makes this obvious.  I'm sympathetic to your sentiment and feel proud when I overcome a tough break.  However, if we played perfect courses with no bad lies I believe golf would still present enough challenges to make it a great game.  I'm not sure how much the opportunity to overcome bad lies adds to the game with all of the other struggles of just hitting the ball well.  It's something I'll keep thinking about. 


As for the handicap system, I think it actually functions exactly opposite of the real world.  Regardless or your talent, practice, etc. the handicap system guarantees a fair match.  Real life often has the opposite feature where people of equal abilities are rewarded differently because of who they know, where they were born, etc.   Moving back to the broader question on whether or not golf should imitate real life, I don't have an answer for that.  I can see both sides.

[Peter Pallotta]

Folks talk about spending ongoing time and money in order to have proper course conditions; but for me I only really need a course to be reasonably dry to consider it in good nick. And that, it seems to me, has almost nothing to do maintenance dollars and almost everything to do with the design & construction team making a well-draining course a top priority. Sure, there's strategy and options and shot tests and vistas and playability for the architect to consider; but healthy turf and firm greens should be his/her goal and responsibility too, no? Or to put it differently: how/why is it that what most sensible golfers think of as a good field of play needs so much time and money and effort to keep it that way?