When evaluating a course do you try to “understand” its conditioning?

[Jon Wiggett]

Is condition and conditioning the same thing?

[Joe_Tucholski]

When playing I don't try to think about what the course conditioning would be like under ideal conditions.  I just notice if the conditions detract from my enjoyment.  I'm also not a course rater so that method works for me.

[/size]Golf digest describes their conditioning criteria as:
[/size]"How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, how firm yet receptive were the greens and how true were the roll of putts on the day you played the course?"
[/size]
[/size]Right or wrong the description specifically states "on the day you played the course."  I hope panelists are rating conditioning based on what they see and not what they think/understand the ideal situation to be.
[/size]Ratings aren't perfect and life isn't fair.

[Sean_A]

You're missing the point. GD wants its panelists to play when the club presents its course in normal on season condition. We all can make allowances. But that is just it they are allowances. It is fairer to the club to play when the course is in good in season condition. Does it always happen, of course not. But it sure is fairer to the club not to play in the off season. By the way March is off season in terms of Bermuda grass growth. You should know that.

I'm confused.  Aren't you supposed to be rating the architecture?

If we are talking in the GOLF DIGEST context, with their multiple categories, couldn't you easily rate the course on all 5-6 other categories and just give it an "NR" on conditioning?

The idea that everyone has to rate the course at just the right time is pretty crazy to me.  Should we only rate Augusta on Masters week?

Of course, you are right. I've played about 1500 different courses so I can figure it out. On the other hand many clubs complain that panelists do not see the course in its normal playing conditions.

For mine, normal playing conditions are whenever the course is open.  If a course needs to be at a certain level of maintenance to really shine, then there is something out of whack about the design.  Golf is an outdoor game which should embrace different weather and seasons as ways to make courses play differently. 

To me, the more important aspect to concentrate on is presentation.  It is easy rip out the heart of a design with incongruous presentation. 

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
I know what you are saying but I can’t agree with you.  If you show up the day after a heavy rain or wind storm and the course is open but still saturated and in the process of being cleaned up do you criticize the conditions?  I don’t think so. If you play it two days after aeration and the greens are bumpy and rolling slow do you downgrade the maintenance?  I don’t think so.  If it is winter and the course is open for play but the greens haven’t been cut (because they can’t and/or everything is frozen) do you criticize the playing conditions?  I don’t think so. 


Golf courses are living things and they go through ups and downs (sometimes on a daily or weekly basis) just like any living thing does.  Someone who is judging a course for purposes beyond their own personal/private assessment needs to understand this. 

[Sean_A]

I must have poorly worded my post. Of course I wouldn't tag a course for maintenance or bad weather caused conditions...hence my meaning of golf is an outdoor game.  That said, if a course really has to have apple pie conditions to shine, then something has gone awry...imo. That said again, if a course is in poor nick when there doesn't seem to be a good reason, then yes, it will lose the benefit of doubt with me.  Honestly though, course conditions rarely impact my view either way.  Even then, subsequent visits often display any unusual opinion I may have had about conditions.  I simply don't find many courses where conditioning is much of a factor in my over-all opinion of a course.  Conditions are almost always adequate to good.  Great conditions really stand out because they are so rare.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

We opened Friday-
Raters bring it on as there is not a soul around except weekends until Memorial Day weekend(which is coincidentally when all the ratings calls start and I have to say no-interesting how many have 516 area codes on Memorial day weekend.....but I digress)


Spring is a great time to play The Bridge with tawny fairways and firm and fast wall to wall.

I wish I could get up there before Memorial day to take you up on that.  Unfortunately there is just no way to make that happen, but appreciate the sentiment.  I do hope to get up that way in June for a business trip, but alas not before Memorial Day unfortunately.


[size=78%]I have always wondered, h[/size]ow much snow do you see out there on L.I. that far out?    When I see the news reports of a Northeaster hitting the city, do the further reaches of L.I. stay more moderated by the surrounding water or do you get it just the same (or maybe even more) as the inland locations in the same region of the country?

We actually get more snow than the city as we catch a lot noreasters that are hardly reported when they miss the city and pound us then Boston.
Not this year though.


Sometimes the noreasters are further inland and miss us though-we are a bit warmer in the winter (temperaturewise but much windier)

[jeffwarne]

Michael and Tommy,


My point was NOT that bermuda grass is not in peak season in March-it's not.
It would be in recovery from three-four months of dormancy and would be starting to green up after a few warm nights, but not immune to a few freezes in March that would return to a less than green semi dormant brownish tawny state.
Often times at a busy club fairways would really be struggling as the bermuda hasn't grown much yet and 4-5 months of no growth leads to a lot of non grown back divot holes accumulating during that period.


Certainly Palmetto (which overseeds some years and others not)and Camden, qualifies as South Carolina, and I have a lot of experience playing both in March.


My point was that March, especially late March, is considered and PRICED as a peak season month, even in Pinehurst which is in North Carolina. Try to get a discount for course conditions at Pinehurst, Caledonia or Hilton Head in the last two weekends in March.


If you're charging full price Peak Season rates, and your course is actively being played ,your course should be eligible to be rated.
Raters should be educated (or selected)to know the difference.

[Tom_Doak]

If you're charging full price Peak Season rates, and your course is actively being played ,your course should be eligible to be rated.
Raters should be educated (or selected)to know the difference.

That's one of the ironies of this discussion:  clubs want raters there when the course is in peak condition, so they'll rate it higher ... BUT, they don't really want raters there during the peak season when they make their $$$, or when the members don't want to put up with intruders.

[Ben Malach]

This whole thread really begs the question why should someone be rating a course. If they don't understand what goes into presenting a golf course for play. If a rater can't walk or play a golf course and understand its state after play and a couple conversations then they honestly should not be rating. As a rater should just like a restaurant critic understand all the elements that make up the experience they are attempting to describe 

[John Emerson]

So what happens to a possibly great course that just aerified greens or fairways just before the rater showed up anonymously?  Is that fair assessment?  Also, how many crappy courses get a higher rank just because of impecable conditioning.  With enough money you can make a crap course look great...

[Dunlop_White]

Without a doubt, April and May are the worst two months to evaluate courses in the transition zone of NC, yet these are the months we receive the most requests for evaluation rounds from panelists of all lists.


As Mr. Whitaker laments, bermuda turf varieties are still in transition and the resistant Poa we are experiencing is rampant.

[/size]A flat course tends to recover rapidly, but an undulated course takes much more time, especially on the Northern and western faced slopes. Undulation may be the heart and soul of the game, but patience is required to grow grass on them.[/color]
[/size][/color]

[Peter Flory]

They changed the definition of conditioning several years ago.  Now, the raters are simply asked to rate how firm and fast the turf conditions are.  They aren't supposed to rate how primped it is, how pretty it looks, or how lush for the conditioning category.


I'm guessing that the change was driven by the movement toward water conservation and the newfound appreciation for how courses play when the ground becomes a factor (thanks to modern architecture movements).

[Tommy Williamsen]

We can talk about "what should it be," but the bottom line is; clubs get to pick when or if they want panelists. I am going to San Antonio in May. A couple of the course there have made it clear that they do not want panelist June-August. Not sure I'd go there in July anyway, but that is their call.

[Joe_Tucholski]

So what happens to a possibly great course that just aerified greens or fairways just before the rater showed up anonymously?  Is that fair assessment?  Also, how many crappy courses get a higher rank just because of impecable conditioning.  With enough money you can make a crap course look great...

It is a fair assessment of the course on that particular day.  It is not a fair representation of the course during ideal conditions or even typical play.  It should also be noted that I am not happy when I show up to a course unaware of aeration that occurred just before I arrive. 


How would you propose you rate the hypothetical course conditioning given the following criteria?
"How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, how firm yet receptive were the greens and how true were the roll of putts on the day you played the course?"

Do you give it a perfect score?  Do you remove the green or fairways from the conditioning component entirely?  Do you give it the average score?  Do you just match the score published for the course?  Do you put what you think the course deserves based on what you read on GCA, the confidential guide, golfwrx, or wherever you get your golf info from?  Do you refuse to rate it?

I hope that rating panels advise raters not to submit ratings when obvious anomalies like aeration are in play.  Less obvious anomalies are harder to deal with.

When I lived in LA I played most of my golf out at Rustic.  I love the course and would battle the traffic from westwood because it really is a special place, but there were periods of times when the approaches were soft and riddled with ball marks while the greens stayed relatively firm(I believe I posted pictures here).  From my perspective the soft approaches detracted from the course and resulted in worse conditioning.  I played regularly enough that I knew it wasn't just a day after rain sort of thing, but if I was a rater visiting once and someone told me it was abnormal should I then rate the conditioning as if the approaches weren't soft?  I hope that doesn't come across as a slight to the staff at Rustic.  I think it's an incredible course given the max rate is under $70 and I usually played for $25 or less. 
To me it makes sense that lower budgets with a high level of play are more likely to have worse conditioning than a place with a high budget and low levels of play.


Maybe conditioning should be removed from rating criteria, many people make that argument.


I guess I'm the only one that thinks if you are rating conditioning based on a given criteria the actual condition of the course should be assessed based on the criteria.

[Mark_Fine]

The definition of conditioning is extremely subjective?  The GD definition was posted but anyone here care to take a crack at defining it?  When you put pen or pencil to paper it is harder than you think.

[Kyle Harris]

The bigger point is that many courses do not "manage panelists" the way they should.

My lord, is there a bigger statement as to the lack of direction of golf managers than this one? (This isn't a commentary on you, Joel, but rather the fact that this statement in 2019 could ever be uttered about any golf course ever).

Perhaps if we were more busy worrying about the development and experience of the people paying the green fee and less about the experience of some ponce who paid for a golf bag that barely fits into his slammed rental car trunk at the end of the round we wouldn't have these so-called problems.

[Sean_A]

The bigger point is that many courses do not "manage panelists" the way they should.

My lord, is there a bigger statement as to the lack of direction of golf managers than this one? (This isn't a commentary on you, Joel, but rather the fact that this statement in 2019 could ever be uttered about any golf course ever).

Perhaps if we were more busy worrying about the development and experience of the people paying the green fee and less about the experience of some ponce who paid for a golf bag that barely fits into his slammed rental car trunk at the end of the round we wouldn't have these so-called problems.

Its rare that I felt "managed" as a rater.  Only one course in the UK I visited worried about course conditions and how it might effect a rating.  Very clubs required that I play with someone and a few times I was happy to play with the pro or a green keeper etc.  In general, I agree with Kyle.  Worry about the payng customers and how to bring them back.  Truth be told, I am still amazed so many private clubs even bother hosting raters...especally the really famous clubs or top clubs in a city/region.


Ciao

[Peter Bowman]

"I'm confused.  Aren't you supposed to be rating the architecture?


If we are talking in the GOLF DIGEST context, with their multiple categories, couldn't you easily rate the course on all 5-6 other categories and just give it an "NR" on conditioning?


The idea that everyone has to rate the course at just the right time is pretty crazy to me.  Should we only rate Augusta on Masters week?"




Tom, how much of a course's architecture affects playability and fun factor based on its conditions?  For example, fairway firmness. Mainly I refer to muddy fairways like Hooper GC has currently vs. when the fairways are firm and the ball is rolling.  As you know, topography affects the ability to play the ground game vs. the air game, and the firmness of the turf definitely affects the ground game play.  Muddy conditions forces use of the air game, which I find architecturally boring if that's all a course has going for it.  Whereas when fairway firmness allows creative use of the ground game, the game is a lot more fun and the course architecture is more interesting, and deserving of a higher rating. 

I think it takes a creative golfer to make creative use of the ground when approaching the greens and flags.  I assume most course raters recognize this too, and add points to courses that allows this kind of creative playing.  So when a rater reviews a muddy course during low season, are they able to recognize the potential for fascinating ground game even when the course is not in season?
-Peter

[Jon Wiggett]

How would you propose you rate the hypothetical course conditioning given the following criteria?
"How firm, fast and rolling were the fairways, how firm yet receptive were the greens and how true were the roll of putts on the day you played the course?"

No offence meant but I really think people who are judging a course on such criteria really do not get it. Talking about cool season grass courses I have never played a course where the fairways were firm that also did not roll. As to how fast they rolled  who the f\@k cares???


I also do not care how receptive greens are so long as the design allows me a chance of getting the ball to stop on the green.


Finally, I am not concerned about how true the putts roll on the green but rather how consistent the result of a putt will be. There is a big difference in trueness of roll and consistency of result.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Truth be told, I am still amazed so many private clubs even bother hosting raters...especally the really famous clubs or top clubs in a city/region.

Very few clubs have enough demand that they don't have to worry about ratings.  Private clubs want to host and brown-nose raters to get a higher rating which helps to keep the club full and/or increases the amount that the club can charge for memberships.  And some members are vain enough that they care about ratings and want to brag to their buddies that they belong to the top ranked club in the state/city/whatever.

[Mark_Fine]

Jon,

You said, "There is a big difference in trueness of roll and consistency of result."  Sorry but I am confused?  If a putt rolls true wouldn't the consistency of the result be pretty predictable?  I really don't know what you are talking about?  How do you factor in things like greens with grain or greens later in the day that have a mix of bent and poa (and the poa seed heads start to form and cause putts to wobble,...),...? 

The same goes for a design that as you say "allows me to stop the ball on the green"?  What does that mean?  If you play a good links course the only way to stop the ball on the green (at least on some holes especially down wind) is to land the ball 20 or 30 yards short.  Is that ok? 
I am not defending anyone's definition of conditioning but I would at least like to understand what you are trying to say?  Part of all this is good common sense as you will be hard pressed to find a definition that means to same thing to everyone and that all agree with. 

[Michael Whitaker]

Dunlop_White says...

Without a doubt, April and May are the worst two months to evaluate courses in the transition zone of NC, yet these are the months we receive the most requests for evaluation rounds from panelists of all lists.

As Mr. Whitaker laments, bermuda turf varieties are still in transition and the resistant Poa we are experiencing is rampant.

A flat course tends to recover rapidly, but an undulated course takes much more time, especially on the Northern and western faced slopes. Undulation may be the heart and soul of the game, but patience is required to grow grass on them.

[Mike Sweeney]

Undulation may be the heart and soul of the game, but patience is required to grow grass on them.

Not in Rhode Island!! Doak 4, 10 miles from The Atlantic Ocean, today




Grab a vest and come on up 

[Michael Whitaker]

Mark_Fine says...

Jon,

You said, "There is a big difference in trueness of roll and consistency of result."  Sorry but I am confused?  If a putt rolls true wouldn't the consistency of the result be pretty predictable?  I really don't know what you are talking about?  How do you factor in things like greens with grain or greens later in the day that have a mix of bent and poa (and the poa seed heads start to form and cause putts to wobble,...),...?

The same goes for a design that as you say "allows me to stop the ball on the green"?  What does that mean?  If you play a good links course the only way to stop the ball on the green (at least on some holes especially down wind) is to land the ball 20 or 30 yards short.  Is that ok?

I am not defending anyone's definition of conditioning but I would at least like to understand what you are trying to say?  Part of all this is good common sense as you will be hard pressed to find a definition that means to same thing to everyone and that all agree with.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

You said, "There is a big difference in trueness of roll and consistency of result."  Sorry but I am confused?  If a putt rolls true wouldn't the consistency of the result be pretty predictable?  I really don't know what you are talking about?  How do you factor in things like greens with grain or greens later in the day that have a mix of bent and poa (and the poa seed heads start to form and cause putts to wobble,...),...? 

Mark,


it is the predictability of the result that is import to a golfer not the smoothness of the roll. That trueness of roll could lead to a consistent result is not really the question though I would suggest that it does not necessarily follow. What the question should have been was 'how consistent were the greens'.


Take a stimp test where the three readings are 10'0", 10'6" & 11'0". The result that would get reported is that of the average 10'6" where as what is relevant to the player is actually the variable of 1'0" between the three. If another green came back with 10'3", 10'6" & 10'9" then it would be far superior to the first even if the first green rolled true and the second bobbled and bumped all over the place. Then add into this the lateral spread on even a slight slope and you start to see WHERE the ball ends up consistently is more important than the trueness of the roll or distance it rolls out. Yet, how many times do you read a report about how consistent a putting surface is.


We hear a lot about how smooth putts a rolling and most assume this means the putting surface will be therefor more predictable but do we actually know? My limited tests suggest that on average paced greens smoothness of roll is not an indicator of constancy of result.

Jon,



The same goes for a design that as you say "allows me to stop the ball on the green"?  What does that mean?  If you play a good links course the only way to stop the ball on the green (at least on some holes especially down wind) is to land the ball 20 or 30 yards short.  Is that ok? 
 

Your example is I think what I am getting at. As a player I do need to be able to stop the ball within a certain distance once on the green but rather want to be able to fashion a way to get the ball to end up on the putting surface. The firmness of the green should be relevant to the firmness of the course as a whole. One of the worst set ups it to have firm greens with soft surrounds but soft greens with firm surrounds are also not really desirable. There should in my opinion be an homogenised set up of the entire course.


As to the design, links greens will almost always allow a run in shot for a reason and where not generally have slopes or runouts that allow the player to stop the ball within a reasonable area. If you take Redan a an example, it relies upon the overall firmness of the playing area for its difficulty and the solution to getting the ball to stop on the green. Were you to make the hole more receptive it would lessen the hole immeasurably.


In my opinion, receptiveness of the green is less important than accessibility.


I hope this makes what I was in a poor way trying to put across more understandable.


Mike M,