Can poor maintenance lesson the quality of a design?

[Mark_Fine]

If Augusta National or Oakmont CC had greens that were in the condition of some (not all) local $25 muni courses, how much would that impact your opinion of the design? 

If the bunker surrounds were half dead or the grassing lines altered to form hour glass approaches and/or fairways narrowed leaving “fairway” bunkers languishing alone surrounded by rough, how much would that impact your opinion of the design.

In the past few months I was back to see one of my renovations and was disappointed with some of the maintenance.  The design was still intact but it left a negative impression on me about the golf course.  It made me think about how important good maintenance is to the architecture. As much as I really wanted to look past this, I had trouble.  Maybe I am too sensitive   


Thoughts?

[Tom_Doak]

If Augusta National and Oakmont had greens that were 8 on the Stimpmeter, but the ball rolled true, they'd still be great courses, and they might even be better than they are now.  But if the greens were patchy or bumpy, that's another story, it's pretty hard for the architecture to shine under those circumstances.


I played a lot of golf this summer at High Pointe while holes were still growing in, where there were a lot of bare spots around the bunkers, and shaggy rough in other areas on the holes that weren't yet open for play.  Those difficulties kind of made up for the fact that the course wasn't yet up to speed.  But they've got a great superintendent and I knew it was going to keep getting better.  It's depressing if it's going the wrong direction.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I do not think that conditioning lessens the quality of the design. On the margin, it can affect one’s appreciation of playing the course. We played Yale two years ago when it was in far from ideal condition, but it was still quite clear how great the design is, and it was still a memorable day of golf. So overall, on the very small margin, the conditioning was a negative. We played Southern Pines right after the restoration while the course was growing in. Later plays shone better light on the course, but the merits of the design were apparent from the get go.


And then there was our round at Mulranny a few months ago. It probably was in as good as condition as it ever is. In no way did the conditioning lessen the quality of its design, particularly the contours of the greens despite their far from pristine conditions.


Sure, good conditions are preferable on the margin to not so good conditions. But a great design is a great design. The rest is a question of expectations.


Ira

[Sean_A]

I agree with Ira. Great is great even if the conditions make it difficult to see greatness. However, poor conditions or presentation may keep me away and it has for a few courses such as Addington. Swinley Forest and Tenby. Thankfully all three are moving in the right direction these days. That said, every course has a limit of return. I don’t need awesome conditions if it means the green fee will be double. This is the issue we have these days. Golfers are hypercritical of green speeds, tee, fairway and bunker conditions. It’s well past the point of silly. It’s an arms race. Higher green fees means higher expectations and around and around we go.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

If the bones are still there and some records exist then there’s a chance of recovery.
Some level of scruffiness, aka sometimes described as rustic, can be ok-ish but poor mowing lines and longer term excess tree growth in particular can’t half screw-up something nice.
Atb

[Mark_Fine]

Good comments.  I just wonder how many of us can look past maintenance that is not up to par or where there is less than ideal conditioning (poor mowing lines for example) and not heavily discount the architecture?  I found it hard myself and it was my design. 

Yale has been mentioned.  I have played it numerous times in the past and it definitely had less than ideal maintenance.  If you are using the Doak Scale how much do you let poor conditions impact your impression/assessment of the design?  Or do you give it a pass and just look beyond that saying if they had a better budget, or managed the mowing lines this way or didn’t have blotchy greens or had a different….. it would be great?

[Sean_A]

Good comments.  I just wonder how many of us can look past maintenance that is not up to par or where there is less than ideal conditioning (poor mowing lines for example) and not heavily discount the architecture?  I found it hard myself and it was my design. 

Yale has been mentioned.  I have played it numerous times in the past and it definitely had less than maintenance.  If you are using the Doak Scale how much do you let poor conditions impact your impression/assessment of the design?  Or do you give it a pass and just look beyond that saying if they had a better budget, or managed the mowing lines this way or didn’t have blotchy greens or had a different….. it would be great?

You don’t slam architecture for poor maintenance and presentation. The architecture isn’t the issue, it’s the club members or owners who are the problem. What I will look past comes down to money. If I like the design, but dislike the presentation, if it’s cheap I will go back. If it’s expensive I give it a miss. I play many courses which would be considered to have sub acceptable conditions/presentation. Some I will happily play tomorrow.

Ciao

[Jim_Coleman]

    I suppose Bethpage Black is as good an example as any. Was it great architecture before the USGA and the NY pumped money in to raise its stature. I’d say yes.

[Mark_Fine]

Sean,
No argument with what you said.  But do you give the course the same Daok Scale score regardless of the presentation?


Jim,
Are you talking about after the renovation?  Rees changed the architecture, not just the conditioning.  If you are talking about the mowing lines I totally agree with you such as the thin strips of fairway that left all the fairway bunkers separated by swaths of rough looked terrible.

[Ira Fishman]

Mark,


I have not played nearly as many courses as Tom as his fellow DS raters in order to know what number to assign Yale, but I certainly would not knock it down because its conditioning had some problems. I am most curious if the Hanse project will change the architecture from what I played a couple of years ago.


Ira

[Tim Martin]

Mark,


I have not played nearly as many courses as Tom as his fellow DS raters in order to know what number to assign Yale, but I certainly would not knock it down because its conditioning had some problems. I am most curious if the Hanse project will change the architecture from what I played a couple of years ago.


Ira

They are reinstalling lost design features which includes the original “double punchbowl” green on # 3 so I think the answer to your question is yes.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
No argument with what you said.  But do you give the course the same Daok Scale score regardless of the presentation?

Jim,
Are you talking about after the renovation?  Rees changed the architecture, not just the conditioning.  If you are talking about the mowing lines I totally agree with you such as the thin strips of fairway that left all the fairway bunkers separated by swaths of rough looked terrible.

Mark

No, if I find a course exceptionally poorly maintained/presented I would knock my score down because these issues reflect on my willingness to return. By the same token, I will boost the score of courses if they are exceptionally maintained/presented. Its fairly rare either way, but it does happen.

Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Sean/Ira,
You might be the exception rather than the norm.  If you ask most golfers what they think about a golf course they will say things like, “The greens rolled great or The fairways were perfect or I never had a bad lie in a bunker,…”.  Unfortunately opinions are mostly driven by conditions. 


At the beginning of this thread what bothered me the most were mowing lines.  That is one of the things I pride myself on “fixing” when I do restorations and renovations and to see things revert back reflects on me (at least I took it that way).  It really is a maintenance issue but honestly it also reflects on the architecture 

[Craig Disher]

I understand the question raised here but I'd also point out that a course's architecture can be diminished by over-maintenance, e.g. over-watering or fertilizing to maintain a deep green appearance. Approaches softened by over watering kills a design that expects firm conditions. In the south, fortunately, over-seeding during the winter is becoming less popular.

[Mark_Fine]

Craig,
Excellent points.  Couldn’t agree more.  Some golfers blame the architect some blame the super.  How would one know?

[Tim_Weiman]

Good comments.  I just wonder how many of us can look past maintenance that is not up to par or where there is less than ideal conditioning (poor mowing lines for example) and not heavily discount the architecture?  I found it hard myself and it was my design. 

Yale has been mentioned.  I have played it numerous times in the past and it definitely had less than ideal maintenance.  If you are using the Doak Scale how much do you let poor conditions impact your impression/assessment of the design?  Or do you give it a pass and just look beyond that saying if they had a better budget, or managed the mowing lines this way or didn’t have blotchy greens or had a different….. it would be great?

Mark,


I played Yale in poor conditions with Tommy Naccarato, Geoff Childs and Mike Sweeney when Tommy famously gave the Yale Athletic Director a dressing down for how poorly the course was maintained.


But, we certainly didn’t think less of the design. Not at all. The greatness of the course was obvious. That was exactly why Tommy gave the Yale AD his “tough love” comments and why Geoff worked so hard to get the issue addressed.


Tim


Tim

[mike_malone]

 If the architecture calls for firm and fast the conditions can affect one’s view of the architecture.


   Mark’s home course ( Lehigh) has holes like 2,5,6,9,10,14,15 just to name a few which have slopes, turns, and humps which would be less interesting with bad conditions.

[Michael Felton]

Mark,


I played Yale in poor conditions with Tommy Naccarato, Geoff Childs and Mike Sweeney when Tommy famously gave the Yale Athletic Director a dressing down for how poorly the course was maintained.


But, we certainly didn’t think less of the design. Not at all. The greatness of the course was obvious. That was exactly why Tommy gave the Yale AD his “tough love” comments and why Geoff worked so hard to get the issue addressed.


Tim


Tim

I think Yale and the Addington are the two courses I have played that had the biggest discrepancy between the quality of the bones of the course and the condition.


Also on this subject, I got to play Merion about 26 years ago. It was the day after they had spiked and sanded the greens and the main thing I remembered of that experience was the condition. I knew it was a great course, but didn't really remember much of it. I played Pine Valley on the same trip and I remember every nook and cranny of that place. Then I got to play Merion again a year or two ago and it was in great shape and oh my god what a golf course that is. So my experience was quite different from one time to the other and I think really the only difference was the conditions.

[SL_Solow]

I had a similar experience with Geoff at Yale.  I recall that Tom Watson said that one of the tests of great architecture was its ability to transcend conditioning (not a direct quote, my interpretation)  In any event, as Tom Paul used to say, the proper maintenance meld allows the architecture of a course to be presented properly but in my view, a less than appropriate conditioning cannot hide the architecture.  It may however diminish the playing experience.  There is a difference

[Joe Zucker]

I understand the question raised here but I'd also point out that a course's architecture can be diminished by over-maintenance, e.g. over-watering or fertilizing to maintain a deep green appearance. Approaches softened by over watering kills a design that expects firm conditions. In the south, fortunately, over-seeding during the winter is becoming less popular.

I think Craig get's very close to my opinion here.  Can poor maintenance ruin a truly great course? No, but it can diminish it.  I'll second the point on overwatering.  At my home course in Texas there are two long par 3s over 200 yards and the fairway in front is always soaked. Like plugged ball soaked.  If you land it one foot onto the green, it bounces to the middle or back. One foot short of the green, it plugs.  This definitely lessens the course and changes the architecture. 


Would my home course be great if this maintenance were better? No, but it might be a point higher on the doak scale.

[Jeff Segol]

IMHO, we have examples of that in the S.F. Bay Area now, to the point where I'm actually getting up at 0-dark-30 on Sunday to play Spanos Park in Stockton.


Last round was at Metropolitan in Oakland. The Johnny Miller design is good, but they're struggling to grow grass on the fairways now, and it's too frustration to hit a good drive and end up with a ball that's barely playable. Las Positas in Livermore is another course I've enjoyed in the past, but all the recent reviews are that it's a mess.


The courses that are in good shape, like my home course of Baylands in Palo Alto, are now well over $100 for a weekend round, or they don't have much availability, hence my long drive.


Also, one of the victims of the pandemic was the concept of going on standby as a single. Few courses will do that now, and some won't even take a single tee time in advance.

[Sam Morrow]

Hear me out but I think poor maintenance can actually show the true greatness of a course.


Let's take The Old Course and any random high end housing development club that's in really good shape but nothing special architecturally.. That high end club with awesome conditions is putting lipstick on a pig. The conditions make that very meh course seem like fun. Play it in poor shape and you'd probably rather be in the bar.


Now take The Old Course, even in poor conditions is amazing design and something exciting over every hump and bump.


Old Blaketree National (before it becomes Bluejack) was a great example of this. Conditions were usually spartan at best but you still looked forward to every shot because of the bones.

[Mark_Fine]

Sam,
Isn’t fun fun?  Not sure there is fake fun but I hear what you are saying. 


We all love The Old Course, but if conditions were poor, it would definitely diminish the fun especially if you are a regular. 


I recall playing Narin one time and they had it soft lush and green.  It was very disappointing and I had a hard time looking past the conditions (as much as I wanted to).  It is hard to do so particularly if it is not a one time thing. 


On the other had, Routine maintenance such as aeration etc is a totally different matter and anyone who down grades a course for that doesn’t understand course maintenance. 

[Stewart Abramson]

Sean/Ira,
 If you ask most golfers what they think about a golf course they will say things like, “The greens rolled great or The fairways were perfect or I never had a bad lie in a bunker,…”.  Unfortunately opinions are mostly driven by conditions. 

That's definitely true for most golfers, but probably not true for most of the golfer who post on this board. In addition to conditions, the second, third and fourth most important factors to most golfers are views/scenery, amenities/clubhouse and service. I think architecture is a distant fifth for most golfers. GCA is a niche

[Ryan Van Culin]

I would say that conditioning does affect the architecture, to a certain extent. I recently saw a wonderful Ross for the first time, and most of the fairway bunkers were unplayable, with just mud and dirt clods in them, and it was very overgrown with trees. This was especially troubling because some of the bunkering was really wonderful, but not at all playable.


Also, I'd like to second the point of firm conditions and add green speeds to the discussion. If it is so soft that you can't utilize the ground game, or the greens so fast that you lose interesting hole locations, then it will be losing some of the architectural value of the course, in my opinion.