What's more important length or condition?

[draysmir]

I would say condition is more important to me, because the last time I had moderately damaged hair, it basically stopped growing because the ends kept breaking off. I need an ok condition at least for my hair to grow, although I would probably pick length as more important if my hair wasn't as susceptible to breakage.

[BJD]

I'm having a hard time deciding. Right now, I really, really, really want longer hair. On the other hand, I've been cutting off several inches a year because my ends were awful, so that it would look like it was in better condition.

[nitagurl]

Length is unbelievably important to me. It's the reason for all the fuss. It's what occupies my daydreams. I have serious life goals written down in my personal journal - and my hair goals still make it onto the list, every time.

But if my length was ratty, frayed, and full of splits and tangles then I'd have to start completely over. There's something about ugly long hair that negates its length altogether.

[Mlarmour]

Condition. I'd rather have short hair in great condition than long hair in poor condition.

[rouxlala]

Definitely condition. I've grown it out before, and it was SO unhealthy. Partially because I bleached it to death (literally), which ended with my decision to shave half of it and cut the other half to just above my jaw.

[Kat-Rinnè Naido]

Length and then condition.

[Margrit]

Condition is more important

[EssleyBlue]

Condition is more important to me. I don't like ratty, strawlike ends on me, because it's too much of a contrast with the rest of my hair. The texture of damaged ends bother me.

[RottenMango]

I would choose health. Damaged hair never looks good to me, long or short. Healthy hair, however, always looks good to me regardless of length. With health, will come length is what I believe.

[Begemot]

Condition. Last time I grew my hair length was more important and I barely knew how healthy hair was supposed to feel since I hadn't had that in long time.