What's more important to you?

[r0wly86]

When it comes to golf course, what is more important.

The design of the course, or the condition of the course.

Would you rather play a very well designed course that is a bit ropy or a boring course that is immaculate. Obviously we would want both but if it was either or, which way would you go?

 

[evemccc]

When it comes to golf course, what is more important.

The design of the course, or the condition of the course.

Would you rather play a very well designed course that is a bit ropy or a boring course that is immaculate. Obviously we would want both but if it was either or, which way would you go?

For my home course, I would want Option 2) Immaculate

I want the greens to be true and fairly quick with no stones in the bunkers. It’s really on and around the greens that the condition of the course matters most to me — this affects the approach shot and putting

Edit: thankfully it is!

 

[Slab]

Toughie, when I think of a great condition course it makes me think that would trump design... until I imagine playing the poorer design every week
But then the great design isn't anywhere near as much fun as I want if it's clagy and rough n ready...

In the spirit of the thread I need to pick one so I'm going for........... design

Edit, no wait condition

Edit edit erm design

Edit edit edit, damit condition

 

[fundy]

some of each rather than all of one, give me a good course in good condition rather than a bad course in great condition or a great course in bad condition

 

[Slab]

Toughie, when I think of a great condition course it makes me think that would trump design... until I imagine playing the poorer design every week
But then the great design isn't anywhere near as much fun as I want if it's clagy and rough n ready...

In the spirit of the thread I need to pick one so I'm going for........... design

Edit, no wait condition

Edit edit erm design

Edit edit edit, damit condition

I switched it round...
After a round am I more likely to complain about the condition of the course or the design?
And like many (most) I'd complain about condition way more than design, so that's the one I'll settle on

 

[r0wly86]

Toughie, when I think of a great condition course it makes me think that would trump design... until I imagine playing the poorer design every week
But then the great design isn't anywhere near as much fun as I want if it's clagy and rough n ready...

In the spirit of the thread I need to pick one so I'm going for........... design

Edit, no wait condition

Edit edit erm design

Edit edit edit, damit condition

tough one isn't it. I haven't come to decision yet

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I think I agree with all answers so far . Ultimately, I left my last course because of the condition. Not that it was a brilliant design to be fair, but a poor conditioned course grates very quickly.

 

[Imurg]

I'm for the design...
I can live with a course being a bit rough around the edges if the design keeps my interest.
As a home course I need one that I'm happy to play almost every day....Got one...the greens are fantastic, the fairways fast etc etc but its an interesting design..
You can't just blast your driver down every hole. You can't always aim at the flag.
I would get bored, very quickly, playing a run of off the mill design even if it is in exceptional condition.

 

[Jamesbrown]

Easy, design. Not too fussed about condition as long as it’s had at least a mow.

 

[Orikoru]

I've played a fair few courses that I'm sure some would consider boring. You could have the most interesting layout in the world, but if the tee boxes are overgrown and the greens are too bobbly to roll a ball over, then there's not much point in playing it.

It depends how extreme we're talking though doesn't it. If boring means every par 4 is straight and the exact same length then you probably wouldn't want to play there. If the well-designed course is just a bit shabby rather than completely awful, then you might opt for that one. Ultimately my standards are not massively high in either respect. Design-wise, I just like the par threes to be of differing lengths really, and condition-wise, as long as I can get a half decent lie on the fairway and my putts actually roll, I'm all good.

 

[jim8flog]

If you mean for week in week out play I go for design.


A course that is a bit rough round the edges can be easily improved but it highly unlikely that a bland course can be redesigned to make it better ( although I know of one course that managed to do this but only after buying some adjoining land).

 

[Deleted member 23270]

It would do my head in if I hit my approach shot to 6ft then my birdie putt bobbled off line every time.

 

[D-S]

Augusta with long muddy, plugging fairways, tees where you can’t find anywhere to put yourpeg in and you’re standing unevenly due to all the divots and the greens are rock hard, bare and the ball bobbles everywhere with bunkers that have almost no sand in them versus your local pay and pay in Masters condition with pure green tight Augusta fairways, greens running true at 14, beautiful white sand perfectly raked bunkers with razor sharp edges and immaculate hand mown striped tee boxes.
I think I’d take the pay and play.

 

[IanM]

Excellent conditioning hides a multitude of dullness.

But chances are, a poor course is poor on both criteria!

 

[wjemather]

A good course never needs to be in immaculate condition; as long as it's playable, it will never be a bad course.
A bad course will always be a bad course; being in poor condition just makes it worse.

 

[Backache]

Almost the only times I've been really dissapointed in a course has been when it has been in really poor condition. I've found the occassional course a bit bland even when the condition has been good but not really to the point of being fed up with it..
I would say there comes a point where really poor condition I find pretty unacceptable but I've never personally found a course where I have found the layout completely unacceptable .
Having said that above a certain level of presentation I am far more interested in the layout rather than whether or not the presentation is perfect.

 

[The Fader]

Great question!

On balance I would slightly favour condition over design.

My (and I suspect the majority of forum members) golf is inconsistent and where and how I hit my shots
from round to round can introduce enough daily variation to offset a more mundane design.

And I don't think I would ever get bored of perfect fairway lies, pristine bunkers, flat and well grasses tees and fast receptive greens.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Every course no matter how bland or repetitive requires me to hit shots to achieve an outcome - that for me is the whole essence of golf. I get my enjoyment from executing shots that deliver the outcome I wish - and that is unlikely to be the case if the course is in poor condition - especially around the greens. Great design but poor condition could see me getting very frustrated and irritated - so for me it is condition over design.

 

[CountLippe]

Askernish in South Uist is a good example of this. Fantastic location and layout, yet rough around the edges.

Personally, as long as a course is cared for, I'd take design over condition.

 

[Backsticks]

Easy. Condition.

A great design, in poor condition, still leaves an unsatisfactory experience. You are almost giving it credit for what it could be, rather than how really not so good it was to play.

A lesser design, in top shape, I find leaves me more with a satisfied - that was nice, I enjoyed it - feeling.

If its a greenfee round, poor condition always leaves the feeling that you didn't get value for money, or that the course is trading on reputation and not really providing the quality.