Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Rick Sides on March 28, 2023, 08:05:42 PM
-
Sunday I got to play my 200th course and I know that’s not a lot compared to others on the site but it got me thinking . Then I read about Mike Trout building a course and thought what are a few basic design features I think most really good courses should have .
1. A short par 3 ( 120 yards)
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
4. A very long par 4
5. A short par 5
6. A long par 5
7. A hole with alternate fairway
8. At least 1 green that makes you scratch your head
Any other ideas ??
-
Sunday I got to play my 200th course and I know that’s not a lot compared to others on the site but it got me thinking . Then I read about Mike Trout building a course and thought what are a few basic design features I think most really good courses should have .
1. A short par 3 ( 120 yards)
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
4. A very long par 4
5. A short par 5
6. A long par 5
7. A hole with alternate fairway
8. At least 1 green that makes you scratch your head
Any other ideas ??
I couldn't really say the length of holes determines if a course is really good. For me there are broader principles at play. I can say length of holes usually makes a big difference to me in terms of really liking a course.
Ciao
-
Rick
I've got lots of ideas about what I like and what I don't like but the thing about your thread heading that I don't like is the word "should". If I recall MacKenzie later wished he'd not published his 13 principles because people tended to think they were essential. Having absolutes also leads to fairly generic design and I prefer a bit of variety.
That "minor" gripe aside, I also like both short and long par 3's but only if they are good !
Niall
-
Sunday I got to play my 200th course and I know that’s not a lot compared to others on the site but it got me thinking . Then I read about Mike Trout building a course and thought what are a few basic design features I think most really good courses should have .
1. A short par 3 ( 120 yards)
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
4. A very long par 4
5. A short par 5
6. A long par 5
7. A hole with alternate fairway
8. At least 1 green that makes you scratch your head
Any other ideas ??
Can't agree with these are musts.
-
Burgerdogs like the Olympic Club in SF. 8)
-
Rick,
I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.
-
Rick,
I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.
That’s why I shudder at the Raynor templates being lionized.
-
Rick,
I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.
That’s why I shudder at the Raynor templates being lionized.
Tom-We have had this discussion many times but I wonder how courses like Yale and Fishers Island get such high marks in the Confidential Guide while eschewing the concept?
-
Variety of challenges
Fun
Sense of unique place
No bad holes
Great greens
Good walk
-
Sunday I got to play my 200th course and I know that’s not a lot compared to others on the site but it got me thinking . Then I read about Mike Trout building a course and thought what are a few basic design features I think most really good courses should have .
1. A short par 3 ( 120 yards)
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
4. A very long par 4
5. A short par 5
6. A long par 5
7. A hole with alternate fairway
8. At least 1 green that makes you scratch your head
Any other ideas ??
Not a terrible list. Not far from my "ideal" collection of holes, with the caveat "when the site allows it." I would add a tiny green and a big green, because I believe a design can and maybe should be eclectic.
Architects from CBM on down have mused (them on long train trips, modern guy on long plane trips" about what their best designs sould include, if given the right site for them. There is nothing wrong with that. I mean pilots use checklists to make sure they don't forget anything important before take off, and they shouldn't be so "cryt down upon" in golf design.
Besides, the "lets go by feel" method of design also ignores the human tendency to fall into habits, some bad, which the checklist might help. The habits are best expressed in the old lines about how you prepare in the mornings, and most of us get into an unrelenting pattern of "sh*t, shower, shave" (or just the reverse, but you get the idea. In golf design, I always found myself and my associates of repeating favorite ideas, like a target bunker in the outside of a DL for mostly looks. Yes, looks great, but if you want variety, you have to have some idea of how to replace it, and pre-thinking in those terms doesn't hurt.
Many here can't see that a creative personality can work its way out of something (pre-defined goals) just as easily as working their way out of supposed "nothing." Raynor and others have taken pre-disposed ideas, and it is really a matter of finding the right places (in any individual design) while some here seem to think that an architect will get so stuck on an idea they will force it, rather than fit it to an appropriate piece of land.
In fact, the essence of creativity is to keep running through options in your head, rather than take a straight line approach
I will say that any list will change with experience. For example, I once just missed a GD "Best New" award because my public course had all par 3 holes in the 130-170 yards, and the raters thought there would ideally be more variety. For several years, I targeted par 3 lengths (when the land allowed, par 3's are always the easiest connector holes) of splits like between 130 to 260. Then it dawned on me that the average players who play the course prefer easier and reachable par 3 holes (I always knew average golfers hated 210+ par 3 holes). If I was still working, I think I would go back to all mid length holes. So, who do I follow? The golfers who actually pay the bills, or America's golf raters/nerds/fans who think a bit differently than joe six pack?
So, maybe the biggest flaw in the proposed checklist is that it ought to start with what that course is trying to do, i.e., goals, etc. Once those are established (i.e., fun to play every day for most courses, to draw $$$) then the design checklist might be considered.
-
Tom-We have had this discussion many times but I wonder how courses like Yale and Fishers Island get such high marks in the Confidential Guide while eschewing the concept?
Both of those are great pieces of property and great settings, and I believe they would have been great courses if Ross or Tillinghast or Flynn built them, too.
Chicago Golf Club is the one course that makes it hard to argue against the templates, because that is not a special piece of ground. But, you could say the same for Oakmont or Winged Foot, and it’s not like all of Raynor’s courses turned out that well - I presume that’s because he put a lot more time and effort into the details at Chicago.
-
So, maybe the biggest flaw in the proposed checklist is that it ought to start with what that course is trying to do, i.e., goals, etc. Once those are established (i.e., fun to play every day for most courses, to draw $$$) then the design checklist might be considered.
From a design point of view I wonder about the utility of a checklist because isn't the client going to be providing you with a checklist (real or implied) as well? Then you're stacking your checklist on top of theirs and you might be having some contradictory or incompatible items. I totally get checklists for non-design tasks, but I just wonder.
-
Tom-We have had this discussion many times but I wonder how courses like Yale and Fishers Island get such high marks in the Confidential Guide while eschewing the concept?
Both of those are great pieces of property and great settings, and I believe they would have been great courses if Ross or Tillinghast or Flynn built them, too.
Chicago Golf Club is the one course that makes it hard to argue against the templates, because that is not a special piece of ground. But, you could say the same for Oakmont or Winged Foot, and it’s not like all of Raynor’s courses turned out that well - I presume that’s because he put a lot more time and effort into the details at Chicago.
Fishers almost routed itself, given the site Raynor had. With all the holes along the water, it would have been a crime not to have built such a good course.
-
I’m not that fussed with the specific make-up of 18-holes, that can surely be allowed to vary, maybe even vary quite significantly, but drainage, natural site drainage would be where my eyes would be focussing.
Atb
-
Seven sets of tees allows everyone to play the course they desire.
-
Just to play devils advocate..
I did a quick assessment of the top 10 courses I've played, all of which have been talked about in length on this board and I currently rate as DS 8s, 9s, and 1-10, and they checked all of the boxes except #7 - Alternate Fairway, (which a handful did).
Perhaps it shouldn't be a checklist, but it seems to correlate pretty well.
P.S. For that matter it holds pretty well with my next 5 as DS 7s...
-
Just to play devils advocate..
I did a quick assessment of the top 10 courses I've played, all of which have been talked about in length on this board and I currently rate as DS 8s, 9s, and 1-10, and they checked all of the boxes except #7 - Alternate Fairway, (which a handful did).
Perhaps it shouldn't be a checklist, but it seems to correlate pretty well.
P.S. For that matter it holds pretty well with my next 5 as DS 7s...
I get that, but correlation is not causation. I can think of some bad and decidedly bog average courses that also meet all/most of the criteria.
-
Rick,
Are there any great courses that don't have exceptional greens?
Tyler
-
So, maybe the biggest flaw in the proposed checklist is that it ought to start with what that course is trying to do, i.e., goals, etc. Once those are established (i.e., fun to play every day for most courses, to draw $$$) then the design checklist might be considered.
From a design point of view I wonder about the utility of a checklist because isn't the client going to be providing you with a checklist (real or implied) as well? Then you're stacking your checklist on top of theirs and you might be having some contradictory or incompatible items. I totally get checklists for non-design tasks, but I just wonder.
Charlie,
The best owner/designer relationships come when the owner gives broad general direction, is confident the architect can deliver, and leaves the gca to handle the design details. Obviously, we present prelim concepts to the owner, which they may use to change direction or have specific input (i.e., "I want an island green") which will generate discussion. Some architects will take the owner's advice (generally wise to give them what they want, unless it's to lay sod green side down) but others won't. In reality, it is always a sliding scale between the people and the ideas they share.
And, if I am charged (as I usually was) with the vague "design the best course possible" then my checklist would surface internally as I started design. As I said, contrary to the belief of some here, I never had a problem when I realized that "favorite green type X" wasn't really a fit anywhere in the project. As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.
-
As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.
Which Brauer-designed course (or courses) would you recommend I visit? I would like to see how much better your "deep" thought greens are than those Raynor designed.
-
Tom-We have had this discussion many times but I wonder how courses like Yale and Fishers Island get such high marks in the Confidential Guide while eschewing the concept?
Both of those are great pieces of property and great settings, and I believe they would have been great courses if Ross or Tillinghast or Flynn built them, too.
Chicago Golf Club is the one course that makes it hard to argue against the templates, because that is not a special piece of ground. But, you could say the same for Oakmont or Winged Foot, and it’s not like all of Raynor’s courses turned out that well - I presume that’s because he put a lot more time and effort into the details at Chicago.
If Golf Magazine is the gold standard then Raynor has a pretty good record even if he gets no credit for any of Macdonald’s earliest work. Fishers, Carmargo, Shoreacres, Chicago, Yeamans Hall and Creek are all in the Top 100 U.S. not to mention Yale which didn’t find its way onto the list. If you use the logic that any of the golden age stars could have built great courses at Yale and Fishers because of the property/setting then I guess you would have to say the same about Cypress Point or Eastward Ho as two examples. I would have loved to have seen Raynor’s finished work at Cypress.
-
Tyler , good question. I meant a specific green that may be a bit wild and fun with pin placements. Obviously the list includes some fun features I enjoy in a routing but ultimately the land has to dictate the course and the client adds input . I just jotted down a few fun features
-
As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.
Which Brauer-designed course (or courses) would you recommend I visit? I would like to see how much better your "deep" thought greens are than those Raynor designed.
You can catch 4 in Northern Minnesota all within a few hours of each other, which I think you will enjoy. I also have 3 in Kansas that are pretty highly ranked public courses (I didn't do much private work) not all that far west of KC. Sand Creek Station is not far from Prairie Dunes, so you can make a day of it. Colbert Hills and Firekeeper are also there.
-
If Golf Magazine is the gold standard then Raynor has a pretty good record even if he gets no credit for any of Macdonald’s earliest work. Fishers, Carmargo, Shoreacres, Chicago, Yeamans Hall and Creek are all in the Top 100 U.S. not to mention Yale which didn’t find its way onto the list. If you use the logic that any of the golden age stars could have built great courses at Yale and Fishers because of the property/setting then I guess you would have to say the same about Cypress Point or Eastward Ho as two examples. I would have loved to have seen Raynor’s finished work at Cypress.
I’m pretty sure Cypress Point would be a great course if Raynor built it, too. Or maybe even if Robert Hunter did it himself! But personally I’m glad MacKenzie brought something to it besides templates, so we can talk about the 9th at Cypress, to name just one hole, instead of trying to wrestle it into being a template.
Trying to get back to the original topic here. A great Course has great holes and great features, and the very best have things that make them special. Raynor managed that, too, in his best work - for example, the 6th at The Creek was the perfect location for his Ounchbowl template. But in other locations it was sometimes just a box that had to be checked.
-
Rick,
Are there any great courses that don't have exceptional greens?
Tyler
Royal County Down?
atb
-
Rick,
Are there any great courses that don't have exceptional greens?
Tyler
Yep, there are.
Ciao
-
Rick,
Are there any great courses that don't have exceptional greens?
Tyler
Bethpage Black
-
As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.
Which Brauer-designed course (or courses) would you recommend I visit? I would like to see how much better your "deep" thought greens are than those Raynor designed.
You can catch 4 in Northern Minnesota all within a few hours of each other, which I think you will enjoy. I also have 3 in Kansas that are pretty highly ranked public courses (I didn't do much private work) not all that far west of KC. Sand Creek Station is not far from Prairie Dunes, so you can make a day of it. Colbert Hills and Firekeeper are also there.
Jeff,
All of these courses have better greens than the supposedly repetitive greens that Raynor built at places like Camargo & Blue Mound? Wow.
-
John,
I guess it is all a matter of opinion. My guess from your tone is that you have already made up your mind that they aren't, and it would be a wasted trip. Hey, I'm not sure they are better myself, being a Raynor fan. I even copied a few concepts of his on a few greens along the way. I have even built a few Biarritz greens, even though I am convinced that is really the least good template of his. At least, I have never understood why they were so good on long par 3 holes. The ones I have built tend to be on short par 4 or par 5 holes. Improvement? Step back? Your call.
-
Jeff, in northern MN I know of the Wilderness and the two Giant's Ridge courses, what's the fourth one?
-
Jeff, in northern MN I know of the Wilderness and the two Giant's Ridge courses, what's the fourth one?
We totally redid Superior National in Lutsen. Great site. Views of Lake Superior from several holes......and they aren't even the prettiest on the site, since a roaring river (the only one on private land in MN) dumps into the lake, but runs through several holes until it gets there. Even the "dull holes" have a view of the ski mountain.
-
John,
I guess it is all a matter of opinion. My guess from your tone is that you have already made up your mind that they aren't, and it would be a wasted trip. Hey, I'm not sure they are better myself, being a Raynor fan. I even copied a few concepts of his on a few greens along the way. I have even built a few Biarritz greens, even though I am convinced that is really the least good template of his. At least, I have never understood why they were so good on long par 3 holes. The ones I have built tend to be on short par 4 or par 5 holes. Improvement? Step back? Your call.
My feeling was that if your greens were better than the supposedly uncreative Raynor's, I would have heard more about them.
In my personal experience, I haven't found actual ideal hole greens to be overly repetitive - the biarritz being something of an exception. While much of Raynor's work repeated hole concepts, there's still plenty of variety in how the holes were fitted to the land. And variety in greens from course to course. Do I think those same holes should be emulated everywhere - no. I like to see designers use their own creativity to build courses. When they are used, the holes should be judged on their merits and not have every redan hole being compared to the original at North Berwick or the 4th at NGLA.
-
-
-
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
These are the same.
-
John,
Lots to debate here. I am sure most would call a green repeated many times, albeit, with the holes very well fit to the land by Raynor, would not be called creative. Of course, many would call modern greens, with many limitations, i.e, all pin positions less than 3%, need for access from the cart path and other circulation issues, etc. less than creative in most cases. I would say many of the greens at the courses I mentioned wouldn't be considered great because they are public courses and I did need to keep them practical.
As to Redan's, yes they need to be tweaked to modern conditions, i.e., slopes attuned to modern roll outs, etc. and probably shouldn't be exactly as Raynor may have done them, with Shinny 7 being a great example. And they should be judged by how well they work for today's golfers, not how they compare to a similar concept designed in 1925.
Can a green be great if John Mayhugh hasn't heard of it? Do bears crap in the woods? ;)
-
Having just been subjected to a 6 hour round at Caledonia and a 5+ hour round at True Blue, I would suggest that to be a truly great course, you need to have a truly great ranger and a truly great commitment to not overbooking. Absent those two things, great course design is insignificant.
-
1. A knowledgeable and expert superintendent.
1.b : A reputable golf course architect on retainer.
2. A membership that recognizes and understands that they have a great course.
3. One "member czar" who replaces the inefficiencies of the "Grounds and Greens Committee".
4. Local and national amateur tournaments hosted regularly.
5. "Caddy Day" on Mondays where cops, firemen and first responders can play.
Oh, and No pickleball courts within earshot of the coursee.... ;D
-
1. A knowledgeable and expert superintendent.
1.b : A reputable golf course architect on retainer.
2. A membership that recognizes and understands that they have a great course.
3. One "member czar" who replaces the inefficiencies of the "Grounds and Greens Committee".
4. Local and national amateur tournaments hosted regularly.
5. "Caddy Day" on Mondays where cops, firemen and first responders can play.
Oh, and No pickleball courts within earshot of the coursee.... ;D
Agree on number 4 (actually, even non-great courses should host some sort of amateur event each year).
But as for number 2 and 3, a golf course does not need to have a membership in order to be great.
-
Dan ,
That sounds terrible !!! A ranger is a must and as I have preached on this site many times before , play the proper tees . Once again at the range today watching a guy hit his driver 190 at the range and he hops on the 6800 yard tees !!!! SMH
-
Great leadership
-
1. A knowledgeable and expert superintendent.
1.b : A reputable golf course architect on retainer.
2. A membership that recognizes and understands that they have a great course.
3. One "member czar" who replaces the inefficiencies of the "Grounds and Greens Committee".
4. Local and national amateur tournaments hosted regularly.
5. "Caddy Day" on Mondays where cops, firemen and first responders can play.
Oh, and No pickleball courts within earshot of the coursee.... ;D
I am told by local township workers that #5 while a nice idea in my area the risk is too high as citizens can find fault with anything are are looking for opportunities to criticize and push an agenda.
-
It’s a misnomer that all the Raynor holes are modeled after templates. There are a variety of freeform efforts across the portfolio where names were given to reflect the natural surroundings.
-
Short green-to-tee walks.
-
A great logo that looks great on a hat or shirt.
Great logo: Pasatiempo
Shite logo: Whistling Straits
Course/club logos should be its own thread. Or has it been?
-
Sunday I got to play my 200th course and I know that’s not a lot compared to others on the site but it got me thinking . Then I read about Mike Trout building a course and thought what are a few basic design features I think most really good courses should have .
1. A short par 3 ( 120 yards)
2. A long par 3 ( over 200 yards )
3. A drivable par 4
4. A very long par 4
5. A short par 5
6. A long par 5
7. A hole with alternate fairway
8. At least 1 green that makes you scratch your head
Any other ideas ??
Hmmm...
Arguably Muirfield is 0/8. I don't think this approach works. At all.
-
Having just been subjected to a 6 hour round at Caledonia and a 5+ hour round at True Blue, I would suggest that to be a truly great course, you need to have a truly great ranger and a truly great commitment to not overbooking. Absent those two things, great course design is insignificant.
Dan
I understand your frustration but does how a course is used really dictate whether it is great ?
Niall
-
Dan ,
That sounds terrible !!! A ranger is a must and as I have preached on this site many times before , play the proper tees . Once again at the range today watching a guy hit his driver 190 at the range and he hops on the 6800 yard tees !!!! SMH
Sounds like the golfing equivalent of paint by numbers.
Niall
-
John,
Lots to debate here. I am sure most would call a green repeated many times, albeit, with the holes very well fit to the land by Raynor, would not be called creative. Of course, many would call modern greens, with many limitations, i.e, all pin positions less than 3%, need for access from the cart path and other circulation issues, etc. less than creative in most cases. I would say many of the greens at the courses I mentioned wouldn't be considered great because they are public courses and I did need to keep them practical.
As to Redan's, yes they need to be tweaked to modern conditions, i.e., slopes attuned to modern roll outs, etc. and probably shouldn't be exactly as Raynor may have done them, with Shinny 7 being a great example. And they should be judged by how well they work for today's golfers, not how they compare to a similar concept designed in 1925.
Can a green be great if John Mayhugh hasn't heard of it? Do bears crap in the woods? ;)
Jeff,
I probably have not played nearly as many Raynor courses as you, but I know there is a lot more variety in the greens than you suggest. I've been commenting in response to this:
As it happens, over 40+ years, I actually came up with over 18 good ideas for putting greens, and didn't always have to repeat myself like Raynor who didn't seem to want to think about it too deep.
You seem to be implying that Raynor only had 18 green designs that he repeated over and over. That's nonsense. Even if he built a "Short" on most courses - any visitor could see that the greens were not the same from course to course.
If you happen to be more creative with your green designs than Raynor, does that make your greens better? Has the Brauer method produced a set of greens better than those at Fishers or Camargo? If so, I would love to see the course. And I bet I would have heard of it before. I might not have heard of a single great green but a collection of them by someone that posts on GCA - yea I probably would know about it. You don't exactly keep your work a secret.
-
Dan
I understand your frustration but does how a course is used really dictate whether it is great ?
Niall
A course is designed to be played, not looked at. That is its sole reason for existence. And so if a course is run in such a way that a round of golf takes 6 hours, I won't ever consider it great. To be great, I would think I would be chomping at the bit to play it again.
If a course had a cool design but was situated next to a pig farm on one side and a paper mill on the other and smelled like ass to such an extent that you got nauseous on the first tee, would you want to go back? If you wouldn't want to go back, doesn't that have to be part of the criteria in determining whether a course is great? A golf course isn't a painting. If no one wants to play it, it's a failure, right?
Obviously, just my opinion on Caledonia. There were (seemingly) a billion people who were interested in playing it on the day I was there. Although I would argue 95% of the people there were more interested in their buckets of beer and blasting music from their carts and snagging Barstool gear from the proshop than they were in the architecture.
-
Dan
It seems to me that you are talking about the experience rather than the course itself. What if you had played Caledonia the very next day when there weren't any other golfers ? The course would be the same and in substantially the same condition. Would you rate it any differently ?
Niall
-
Dan
It seems to me that you are talking about the experience rather than the course itself. What if you had played Caledonia the very next day when there weren't any other golfers ? The course would be the same and in substantially the same condition. Would you rate it any differently ?
Niall
I guess the point (for me, anyway) is that there would not be a very next day.
And I suppose this is loosely connected to the debate about whether views/setting/location should be considered when evaluating a course. Would Pebble be a top 50 course if it didn't have the cliffs and Pacific Ocean? If you took away the eye candy and simply evaluated the course? The fact is, it does have those things, they add to the experience, and need to be part of the conversation, in my opinion.
And if someone tells me there is an architecturally "great" course, but it will take 6 hours to play, I will immediately lose any desire to play it. I have a hard time considering a course "great" if I have zero interest in playing it. Which I realize is 100% subjective and probably not the way most would look at it.
-
I hate to play slowly. So I actually have found that my tolerance for a slow round is a decent indicator for how I find the architecture. We had a slow rounds at Pac Dunes and Sheep Ranch last year. I was not as bothered at PD because the architecture is so compelling while although, Sheep Ranch is very good, the pace of play was more annoying because the architecture is not as compelling. The same thing with a slow round at Sleepy Hollow (did not bother me much) compared to slow rounds at Kingsbarns and Castle Stuart (architecture not good enough to overcome pace of play).
Ira
-
Rick,
I think the checklist approach is more likely to predict mediocre design.
That’s why I shudder at the Raynor templates being lionized.
[/quote]
Shudder? Give me a Short and Biarritz every time and you can keep the Eden and Redan. I’ll never get enough of the first two.
-
The idea of knocking a course from consideration for slow play is hard for me because it's so random. I guess there are some course designs where play tends to back up, and some venues that overbook every day they can, so that the slowness is really a phenomenon. But it's just as likely to be a day where you were unlucky, had a late tee time, and were stuck behind some bad golfers.
However, I would be okay with people including the "experience" as a part of their rating, if everyone did it consistently. In that case, a one-time bad experience wouldn't have nearly the effect of a course which was consistently slow.
I got onto this idea when considering weather as a factor in the rankings. No one ever really addresses that, either, but there are a few courses where the weather is a factor so often, that being told to disregard it is disingenuous. Indeed, on a course in a windy place, a design that allows players to get around in the wind and still enjoy themselves should be a major consideration as to whether the course is really good.
You could do the same for conditioning -- as long as everyone did it consistently, then the bad days would be scored at the proper rate.
-
The idea of knocking a course from consideration for slow play is hard for me because it's so random. I guess there are some course designs where play tends to back up, and some venues that overbook every day they can, so that the slowness is really a phenomenon. But it's just as likely to be a day where you were unlucky, had a late tee time, and were stuck behind some bad golfers.
However, I would be okay with people including the "experience" as a part of their rating, if everyone did it consistently. In that case, a one-time bad experience wouldn't have nearly the effect of a course which was consistently slow.
I got onto this idea when considering weather as a factor in the rankings. No one ever really addresses that, either, but there are a few courses where the weather is a factor so often, that being told to disregard it is disingenuous. Indeed, on a course in a windy place, a design that allows players to get around in the wind and still enjoy themselves should be a major consideration as to whether the course is really good.
You could do the same for conditioning -- as long as everyone did it consistently, then the bad days would be scored at the proper rate.
As you know, I am all about the experience. Which course is better than which is just about discussion entertainment. Anyone who takes it more seriously than that has rocks in their head. Unless of course you have skin in the game, which of course makes that opinion biased.
I definitely give bonus points to those courses with space to get around in strong winds. However, some catch these courses on low wind days and think these places are fields. There are far more courses spoiled by being too narrow for wind and firm conditions than there are courses too wide for whatever reasons. Looking for golf balls is one of the worst things about the game.
Ciao