Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Richard_Mandell on September 14, 2022, 10:02:28 AM
-
As I was writing many of the chapters of Principles of Golf Architecture, I thought of the treehouse and how some of my thoughts are sure to provoke great, fun (and civil) debate on GCA. Here is the opening paragraph to my chapter on the Principle of Fairness. I'm guessing just seeing this as a proposed principle will make some heads rotate 360 degrees, but before your family and friends start cleaning up the mess, read the whole chapter (then explode):
Fairness is almost considered a dirty word to golf course architects, especially when uttered by golfers. Rarely, though, is a golf architect allowed to turn a blind eye to the Principle of Fairness, free to design without practical considerations. No matter how much a golf architect may want to sidestep the discussion, it’s hard to avoid.
Chapter 24: The Principle of Fairness can be accessed by visiting https://www.golf-architecture.com/principles-of-golf-architecture (https://www.golf-architecture.com/principles-of-golf-architecture) and scrolling halfway down to clicking on the chapter itself. I'll try my best to engage but will be on-site in Sarasota at Bobby Jones Golf Club the rest of the week so I may be delayed in my responses.
-
8) Like baseball, there's no crying in golf!
Glad to know CBM thought the same...
-
8)
You hate to use fairness as a governing factor in design , as a little quirk here and there is so much fun. But to that a long slog of difficult and or silly holes isn't good at all!
-
Fairness is simply the wrong word. Difficulty is the correct word. When you hear someone (usually someone who thinks he has game) say something is unfair, he simply means his ego is hurt, because he can't accomplish what he expects he should be able to. The shot or shots required are too difficult for him to accomplish. Often these golfers also belong to the BMW Club (Bitch, Whine, and Moan). We high handicappers. who often encounter difficult situations on the course where we can't accomplish what we would like to, simply laugh at the BMWers.
-
I cannot think of a single reason to ever use the F word in a golf context.
By its nature golf is unfair.
However, I think it's appropriate for architects and golfers to think about whether a hole or a shot presents a REASONABLE challenge for the golfers who will be playing the course.
Long forced carries with no way around them come to mind. So do narrow fairways bordered by deep rough.
-
I checked out the Anstruther 5th thread. At this time fairness hasn't been mentioned. However, the word vicious has been used.
-
;D ;)
Garland I think that's an excellent answer. Where I might disagree is on the construction of greens. The very best ones are difficult but allow for a skilled player to find a way to two putt. Anywhere this wasn't true eventually had to fix it particularly as green speeds increased over time. Remember having a putt on the fourth hole at Rolling Green many years ago that either went in or down the hill. Give me my wedge please LOL! By the way the golf course at Rolling Green is fabulous and one of Flynn's best works
-
Where I might disagree is on the construction of greens. The very best ones are difficult but allow for a skilled player to find a way to two putt. Anywhere this wasn't true eventually had to fix it particularly as green speeds increased over time. Remember having a putt on the fourth hole at Rolling Green many years ago that either went in or down the hill.
Doesn't that reflect more on the speed of the green and pin location than on the construction of the green?
-
8)
Yes Ben, it does.
-
Richard--I wasn't sure how to get to the rest of the chapter...but allow me to make one point:
I have always felt that those of golf's greatest charms (when a course is well designed) is that it simulates life. I think courses in the USA (and more recently courses in GB&I) have lost some of that charm by being over manicured. Bad bounces and bad lies are just part of the "game of life" and therefore are fine IMO in the "game of golf". Obviously this can be taken too far which totally eliminates the skill factor (for example ion a green is uncuttable from a certain direction that is not unfair...just don't hit it so you are left with a putt in that direction...but. green that is uncuttable ia all directions would be inappropriate to truly unfair)
-
Fairness doesn't apply in golf architecture because it's the same for everyone.... its all fair. That doesn't mean all architecture is OK. It rather means the author has chosen the incorrect word in this case. I get the impression some use unfair as a substitute word for features, holes and courses they don't like. They think it somehow distances their opinion from an "objective" truth. No, in golf architecture it is best to explain why you don't like something and leave it at that. There is no need to attempt applying an imaginary universal principle of what is right to ultimately "justify" your opinion.
Ciao
-
Fairness doesn't apply in golf architecture because it's the same for everyone.... its all fair.
Not everyone's game is the same, though. If you have a hole with a 250-yard carry over water, or a cliff, that hole might not be "fair" to the 230-yard carry guy who plays to the same handicap as the longer hitting player who carries it 265. He might literally not be able to finish the hole.
That's a pretty extreme case, and while I generally agree that most things that are the same for all are "fair" by definition, the differences in the games of different players can make things "feel" or in extreme cases perhaps "be" unfair.
-
So I was a HS teacher for 39 years, and if I had a nickel for every time a kid said “That’s not fair!”, I could have retired long before I did.
And, of course, what they meant in almost every case was that they had not gotten what they wanted and/or what they believed they somehow “deserved”. And so it is with “fairness” complaints on a golf course.
The real meaning of “fair” is that you get treated the same way as others with the same circumstances, and that’s one of the many beautiful things about our game; you are guaranteed a fair trial! Whether or not you get the outcome you wanted is another story.
(Btw, my stock reply to the “That’s not fair!” complaint was “The fair is where there are rides and cotton candy, and this isn’t the fair!”. Students rarely found that satisfying, but it was a good jumping off point toward explaining what fair really means. And what it doesn’t.)
-
Fairness doesn't apply in golf architecture because it's the same for everyone.... its all fair. That doesn't mean all architecture is OK. It rather means the author has chosen the incorrect word in this case. I get the impression some use unfair as a substitute word for features, holes and courses they don't like. They think it somehow distances their opinion from an "objective" truth. No, in golf architecture it is best to explain why you don't like something and leave it at that. There is no need to attempt applying an imaginary universal principle of what is right to ultimately "justify" your opinion.
Ciao
Correct. A golf course is a venue for the playing of games of golf between two or more golfers. The course is the same for all the golfers who play it, therefore it is fair by definition. The only exception to this is in a tournament context if something changes during the day.
-
I've talked with several players I know on mini tours about fairness and most tell me that fairness is about how good shots are rewarded. One example of 'unfair' I have heard: sticking an approach to 10 feet but having 4 or 5 different breaks and being no better off for having hit the green. Unfair? Probably not. Unreasonable? Maybe so.
-
As has been said here countless times, fairness is an irrelevant concept in golf. Is it fair that one ball plugs in a bunker and one doesn’t? Is it fair that one ball lands in a divot and one doesn’t?
Fairness also has nothing to do with architecture. It’s not unfair that I can’t carry a 225 lake with no options. It’s bad architecture. It’s not unfair that I hit a shot into a bunker with no aesthetic value on a 400+ yard straight hole that was placed 170 yards off the tee. It’s bad architecture. Good architects make stupid mistakes every so often; bad architects make lots of stupid mistakes.
-
"Rarely, though, is a golf architect allowed to turn a blind eye to the Principle of Fairness, free to design without practical considerations. No matter how much a golf architect may want to sidestep the discussion, it’s hard to avoid."
Like almost any discussion, this isn't a black and white issue, there are degrees. I doubt many architects purposely design something to be "unfair", i.e. a crowned green that deflects nearly all shots off the green because it just won't hold, or a 5 yard wide fairway. My take was always to strive for fairness, knowing that a few instances will probably exist over 160 acres of the golf course and that golfers will accept a few bad bounces, but won't come back and play if there are consistently too many. That "acceptable level" might vary among golfers, from zero or just one bad bounce a round to several.
The golfers I complain about are the ones who complain the most. A popular phrase is "What if I hit it here? I got no shot!" It is impossible to make a golf course completely fair when opinions vary most define it as "nothing bad happens to me no matter where I hit it, but my opponent should face several impossible shots." Not to mention strategic design inherently focuses on creating better results from one spot over another. You got to have some difficult outcomes or there ain't no strategy.
And some mistake "uncomfortable" with "impossible." I have heard golfers complain about a hole that strongly encourages a fade when all they hit is a hook. Would I consider a hole where trees forced you to hit a strong fade, as opposed to one that merely strongly encourages it? Probably not, as it is no skin off my nose to leave a suitable bailout area for the hook without compromising the basic strategy of the hole.
As Richard writes, there are practical considerations, i.e., so few golfers can hit a particular shot on demand, and with so many C and D players (heck maybe even B players) playing every day, it is important to accommodate the way they play, which is hit and hope in many cases.
Again, all in all, architecture has probably been a quest for fairness since they replaced gorse at the Old Course with turf to make it more playable. There is also no strategy if there is nothing but random bounces that consistently go awry. Or, there needs to be some reward to make "risk-reward" work. All of that is good, and we probably tend to take some extreme examples of complaints and make it sound like all golfers want good results at an unrealistically high level.
Just my take. In any case, Rich's post served it's purpose.....I just bought the book to see what else he has to say!
-
Fairness doesn't apply in golf architecture because it's the same for everyone.... its all fair.
Not everyone's game is the same, though. If you have a hole with a 250-yard carry over water, or a cliff, that hole might not be "fair" to the 230-yard carry guy who plays to the same handicap as the longer hitting player who carries it 265. He might literally not be able to finish the hole.
That's a pretty extreme case, and while I generally agree that most things that are the same for all are "fair" by definition, the differences in the games of different players can make things "feel" or in extreme cases perhaps "be" unfair.
What I am saying is the use of the word fair is incorrect. The problem you illustrate isn't an issue of fairness. As Jeff suggests, it is more an issue of practicality, reasonableness or even intelligence...if the goal is for a wide variety of abilities to play the hole. Fairness is not the issue.
Ciao
-
Fairness is simply the wrong word. Difficulty is the correct word. When you hear someone (usually someone who thinks he has game) say something is unfair, he simply means his ego is hurt, because he can't accomplish what he expects he should be able to. The shot or shots required are too difficult for him to accomplish. Often these golfers also belong to the BMW Club (Bitch, Whine, and Moan). We high handicappers. who often encounter difficult situations on the course where we can't accomplish what we would like to, simply laugh at the BMWers.
This is interesting. I often think about certain bunkers and how they only hurt weaker players ... i.e., short bunkers on longer par 4s that someone with decent length would never find, but shorter hitters are extremely penalized. I understand the people you're describing, but not all good players are BMWs.
-
... but not all good players are BMWs.
Obiously! Jack wasn't a BMWer. He said the more whining he heard, the more he knew he had a good chance of winning. :)
-
I was at a course this summer where the forward tees required a forced carry of 150 yards. My wife can no longer carry her tee ball that far. I don't like the word "unfair" but that was unfair. I had her tee it up in the fairway, but that was unsatisfying for her.
-
I was at a course this summer where the forward tees required a forced carry of 150 yards. My wife can no longer carry her tee ball that far. I don't like the word "unfair" but that was unfair. I had her tee it up in the fairway, but that was unsatisfying for her.
There were no other options? One day, I played with top players in my club from the back tees. When facing a forced carry on a par 3, I hit 8 iron right of the pond, and then wedge to the green. If the better player makes the carry, but can't hold the green on the hole, he has an extremely difficult up and down. I have seen players put it in the water while trying to get up and down from behind.
-
Fairness is simply the wrong word. Difficulty is the correct word. When you hear someone (usually someone who thinks he has game) say something is unfair, he simply means his ego is hurt, because he can't accomplish what he expects he should be able to. The shot or shots required are too difficult for him to accomplish. Often these golfers also belong to the BMW Club (Bitch, Whine, and Moan). We high handicappers. who often encounter difficult situations on the course where we can't accomplish what we would like to, simply laugh at the BMWers.
This is interesting. I often think about certain bunkers and how they only hurt weaker players ... i.e., short bunkers on longer par 4s that someone with decent length would never find, but shorter hitters are extremely penalized. I understand the people you're describing, but not all good players are BMWs.
Yes, I think one purpose of design (i.e., arranging the landscape for a particular human purpose) would be to eliminate all impossible shots due to forced carry, keep fairways wide enough and greens big enough to accept expected approach shots, etc. I came to the conclusion a few years ago that there really shouldn't be any fw bunkers or deep woods (unless those existed naturally) more than 180-200 yards from the green. Any C or D level player who has muffed his tee shot has basically cost themselves a shot at reaching the green in regulation, so why make their plight any worse?
For that matter, even for better players, is there any need to differentiate them by more than a stroke per hole? That is, a bunker doesn't need to be so severe as to preclude recoveries. If the player can execute, he should have a chance to make par from the hazard, but is most likely to make bogey. No real need for double is there? As someone opined here years ago, the real excitement of golf is in the period where you don't know the result of a shot.
That could apply in both match and stroke play. The longer each golfer is "alive" in any match, the more exciting it is. Obviously, stroke play is more difficult in that regard than match play, where a big score on the first might end the match effectively right away. That, and the fact that most golfers play for casual recreation and camaraderie are probably the real reasons we design courses that are blander than some here would prefer.
Lastly, there is variety. Just as the island green gets in players' minds early, so too could one hole with really deep or difficult hazards, but a string of holes with them would reduce the overall impact of a difficult hole. But, as mentioned, difficulty is not the same as fairness exactly. Each course should have it's own level of difficulty. Few courses should have that many holes that are unfair (i.e., cannot complete the hole because of forced carries or some other factor.) That is a whole nother level of unfairness over a particular spot on a hole where you just can't get it up and down, or easily two putt.
-
Fair?
Golf is not fair. Tell that to the wind, the nuancing of turf/grass, the unseen pebble in your putting line or the divot your ball rolled into in the dead solid middle of the fairway!!
a better "F" word to focus on is FUN.
Plus, if golf truly was "Fair", you would not need the socialist approach to making matches "fair" with handicaps serving as a "stroke redistribution" tool.
Love how far-right wing players suddenly - and episodically - embrace charity and welfare when it is needed to compete on an even foot with others who have worked harder than them to get ahead (at golf).... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Not surprising that the conversation turned to the "Golf is not fair" trope and that it's only good players that care about fairness since the purity of the hacker means everything is tough and we're all in it together.
In Richard's book the difference between playability and fairness is broken down with the claim that most complaints of fairness has to do with lack of playability due to maintenance and conditioning. His summary is: "[A] golf course architect has little responsibility in making a golf course 'fair'. Yet there is some benefit to architects who strive to make their work playable for as many golfers as possible."
Some examples cited are greens with fronting hazards having sufficient depth to hold the likely shot being hit to them and bunkers being sufficiently large to allow for a shot however difficult.
As I read his fairness in conditioning would fall under cases such as pinning a cup on too much slope for the maintained speed of the green, bunkers that vary between hardpan and soft lies with no real way to ascertain what is lying under the ball at any point in time. Playability concerns would fall under landing areas that are too small for the shots being asked for - e.g. a 25-35 yard fairway with binary outcomes on each side and no lay-up option, a shallow green over a creek with insufficient back to front slope to reasonably hold any shot. Sure it's the same for everyone and a lousy player will shoot a lousy score no matter what, I get that. Still when the principal of fairness is addressed like Richard is talking about a strong case can be made that it does make for better golf.
-
I was at a course this summer where the forward tees required a forced carry of 150 yards. My wife can no longer carry her tee ball that far. I don't like the word "unfair" but that was unfair. I had her tee it up in the fairway, but that was unsatisfying for her.
There were no other options? One day, I played with top players in my club from the back tees. When facing a forced carry on a par 3, I hit 8 iron right of the pond, and then wedge to the green. If the better player makes the carry, but can't hold the green on the hole, he has an extremely difficult up and down. I have seen players put it in the water while trying to get up and down from behind.
There were no other options. They were the most forward tees.
-
I am going to push back a bit on the consensus a bit. I don't buy the argument that "everybody is playing the same course," so no one has an advantage or is disadvantaged.
I think there is a problem if a course is presented/maintained in such a way that a less than perfect shot is punished far out of proportion to the size of the miss. Two examples (forgive me if the details are not quite accurate):
Payne Stewart's uphill putt on the 18th green during the US Open at Olympic in 1998. His putt from 30ft. below the hole rolled almost up to the hole and then rolled all the way back to his feet.
The par-3 7th hole at Shinnecock during one of the US Opens there, when the vast majority of players could not hit a shot that stayed on the green. Yes, a few players could and did, but when the vast majority of the very best players in the world could not, something is wrong.
No doubt luck plays a part in golf. I prefer not see luck overwhelm skill in determining an outcome.
-
Guys,
Just to be clear, I do not like the word fair nor do I design to "be fair." I'm more like McDonald: quit crying about fairness in architecture. I do cite some examples that could be considered unfair yet I still think that the Principle of Playability is more of a discussion along those lines (yes, there is a Principle of Playability chapter). I also believe there are distinct differences between fairness, playability, and difficulty (and yes, there is a chapter on the Principle of Difficulty).
I hope everyone can read the entire chapter and they will see my context for Fairness. It is mote appropriate on the conditioning side than architecture.
I think Jeff B. hit the hammer on the nail when he said he bought the book to see what else I said on the matter. Just an observation.
I'll post both the chapters on Difficulty and Playability in the next few weeks. Or go ahead and buy the book now.
-
I would agree there's no fairness issue per se. The only issue is how a course plays relative to the target audience for that course. It appears to me that play at Baylands, in Palo Alto, has shifted significantly to low handicappers and younger players, since Forrest Richardson's renovation opened in 2017. It's just a much harder golf course than it was before, for two reasons:
1) Because the Palo Alto City Council required 10 acres from the course to be set aside for future alleged soccer fields, the course is now much more east to west, which means more holes play directly upwind or downwind. Holes into the wind are tough on older players and higher handicappers.
2) California Fish and Game required extensive planting of bunch grass and other native plants as part of the project, and no trimming was allowed. Consequently, shots that miss the fairway mostly result in a lost ball or an unplayable lie, which is much different than how the old course played.
The end result of these factors is that the competitive club at the course also has lost a lot of older members and higher handicappers, and is now much more comprised of younger guys that hit the ball longer. That's just the reality.
-
I am going to push back a bit on the consensus a bit. I don't buy the argument that "everybody is playing the same course," so no one has an advantage or is disadvantaged.
I think there is a problem if a course is presented/maintained in such a way that a less than perfect shot is punished far out of proportion to the size of the miss. Two examples (forgive me if the details are not quite accurate):
Payne Stewart's uphill putt on the 18th green during the US Open at Olympic in 1998. His putt from 30ft. below the hole rolled almost up to the hole and then rolled all the way back to his feet.
The par-3 7th hole at Shinnecock during one of the US Opens there, when the vast majority of players could not hit a shot that stayed on the green. Yes, a few players could and did, but when the vast majority of the very best players in the world could not, something is wrong.
No doubt luck plays a part in golf. I prefer not see luck overwhelm skill in determining an outcome.
David, I agree with you about Payne's put at Olympic, but not about Shinnecock, since the winner of that tournament, Retief Goosen, was able to hold that green by hitting a draw into the dry slippery green. That's one of the shots that won him the tournament.
-
What I am saying is the use of the word fair is incorrect. The problem you illustrate isn't an issue of fairness. As Jeff suggests, it is more an issue of practicality, reasonableness or even intelligence...if the goal is for a wide variety of abilities to play the hole. Fairness is not the issue.
I'm simply saying how many golfers will use the word "fair." You see it in rules discussions all the time, despite the fact that the Rules are the same for all.
As Tommy illustrates a few posts down.
-
As a point of nuance to this discussion as it pertains to the OP.
I think it should be noted that when a player claims "unfair" its almost always coming from the viewpoint of that one player and his relative abilities. (Yes you may have a GCA nerd out there who trys to see it from multiple viewpoints, but we know they are the exception.) ;)
As compared to an architect, who when designing I would think they keep in mind as many different player abilities as possible and at least attempt to accommodate/offer options for them in some fashion.
-
Here is my position along with Forrest's on "fairness" from our book on Hazards:
"The Concept of Fairness"
The modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of golf. A pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed booklet of over 150-pages is required to explain the game. Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered. Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed to making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” disadvantage. This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds. Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes—one good and one bad. That would just not be fair—or would it?
Have golf architects and the clients they work with forgotten what golf is really all about? The game was never meant to emulate physics, where every action equates to an equal and opposite reaction. As with life, golf is expected to have ups and downs. Some days a golfer might do everything right, and yet the result still turns out bad. Other times, a lucky bounce or carom might lead to good fortune even when the swing and all its results should have led to an awful mess. Golf can teach us many lessons about life, but only if we allow skill, luck, and fate all to remain part of the game.
If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges will remain? Aren’t those bumps in the road of life just like the hazards of golf? In many ways it is the triumph of overcoming setbacks that keeps us energized. Were it not for ordeals, it would only be a matter of time until we would become complacent and our lives (or rounds) filled with boredom.
When we think of “fairness,” we are reminded of a situation that occurred at The Old Course at St. Andrews. Walking up the 18th fairway after hitting our final tee shots, one member of our group cringed at the site of his ball lying in the middle of Grannie Clark’s Wynd, a macadam road that crosses the 1st and 18th fairways. The thought crossed his mind, “Here we are playing the grandest of all golf courses and this perfectly struck drive on the final hole has found a lone stretch of rockhard road in the center of the fairway. What a bad break. What poor luck to deserve such an unfair fate.” You see, in Scotland, and especially on The Old Course, you still play it as it lies, and this little macadam path is considered an integral part of the golf course. There is no free drop to gain relief. No automatic allowance that says you can place the ball back on forgiving turf to play your next stroke. No, you are stuck with the situation and you deal with it the best you can.
As the golfer prepared to play his shot from the tightest of lies, one couldn’t help but notice the spectators watching his misfortune from the fence rail along the hole. As his club swept toward the ball and picked it cleanly off the hard dark surface there was a sense of elation as it rose quickly and somehow managed to scurry up onto the green surface, coming to rest about 30 feet from the flagstick.
The golfer’s walk to the green was neither one he nor his playing partners would ever forget. Every one of the on-lookers had applauded the shot. Two putts later, the golfer scored one of the greatest pars, and most memorable moments of his golfing career. And all thanks to what looked like a dire and “unfair” circumstance.
But that is golf. Many of the elements that add so much richness to the game may be lost in our pursuit of “fairness.” There is too much at stake. The concept of fairness must be tempered at all cost.
-
The principle of fairness comes from a misconception of what golf is, the ultimate goal of golf is to get a ball from A to B in the least number of strokes.
Most golfers think that golf is about hitting the ball well and if you hit the ball well you should get rewarded for hitting that good shot. The results of this are, for example, I hit a good tee shot on the fairway, I should be rewarded by getting a good lie, this is always the point of golfers who think ending in a divot is unfair, I hit the ball straight, I shouldn't end up in a bunker if I do that, the point from golfers who don't like centre line bunkers, and I hit a great shot from a long way out, my next putt shouldn't be difficult, the sloping 10 foot putt is unfair.
When the golfer thinks it's only about how and not how many the fairness discussion will always come up, it also interesting to hear most who give out about perceived unfair results on their shots never seem to have a problem when one of their bad strikes gets a 'good' bounce.
Most times trying to convince a golfer to change their mind on 'fairness' is a futile process, they rarely change their mind, mainly I just like to say golf is about getting from point A to point B and overcoming obstacles along the way.
I think the more the introduction of new golfers is on the course as opposed to the practice ground or the driving range the more likely they are to look at the game in a different manner.
-
This thread brings to mind my opinion of Pebble Beach v. Oakmont. I always loved every minute on the course at Pebble, it has it all. As for Oakmont, all it has is difficulty. I'll take Pebble 100-1
-
I was at a course this summer where the forward tees required a forced carry of 150 yards. My wife can no longer carry her tee ball that far. I don't like the word "unfair" but that was unfair. I had her tee it up in the fairway, but that was unsatisfying for her.
There were no other options? One day, I played with top players in my club from the back tees. When facing a forced carry on a par 3, I hit 8 iron right of the pond, and then wedge to the green. If the better player makes the carry, but can't hold the green on the hole, he has an extremely difficult up and down. I have seen players put it in the water while trying to get up and down from behind.
There were no other options. They were the most forward tees.
Did she still have to make the carry from where she teed it in the fairway?
-
Re long forced carries with no options, ask my wife about Yale 9.
I do not think that she has ever used the word "unfair"; she accepts it for what it is. However, she does think less of courses with too many long forced carries to reach the fairway.
Ira
-
I would think fairness has more to do with course maintenance than design. Couple of examples - I remember Nick Faldo complaining about a course (which shall remain nameless) where the greens were about 100 years old and had "hot spots", where if the ball landed on a hot spot it would bounce hard and high and if it landed on a soft spot, it would stick. That made it impossible to judge where to land a shot and meant that it didn't really matter how good you were - it was just luck. The other is when the greens are bone hard and the fringes are soft. So you can't fly the green and you can't run it up. I don't think that's fair either. Neither has anything to do with design though.
-
Now, having read the chapter, I see that fair is defined as "in accordance with the rules or standards." It seems to me that this definition is more applicable to tennis which has much more definite rules and standards about constructing a competition venue.
Marriam-Webster has as its first definition "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism." Marriam-Webster marks the rules or standards definition as being synonymous with "allowed".
It seems to me that "marked by impariality" is a better match to how fair is used in golf.
-
I was at a course this summer where the forward tees required a forced carry of 150 yards. My wife can no longer carry her tee ball that far. I don't like the word "unfair" but that was unfair. I had her tee it up in the fairway, but that was unsatisfying for her.
There were no other options? One day, I played with top players in my club from the back tees. When facing a forced carry on a par 3, I hit 8 iron right of the pond, and then wedge to the green. If the better player makes the carry, but can't hold the green on the hole, he has an extremely difficult up and down. I have seen players put it in the water while trying to get up and down from behind.
There were no other options. They were the most forward tees.
In the full chapter on fairness, Richard wrote, "A golfer cannot claim unfairness citing a lack of ability either; that's why the handicap system exists."
How does this not suggest there was nothing unfair about the hole? When playing with a stronger player, the handicap system is there to adjust for discrepancies in relative talents. When playing with a player at the same level of ability, both face the same dilema. How is that not fair?
-
I thank Mark Fine for posting what we wrote in 2005 in the Bunkers/Hazards book. Mark deserves credit for 95% of that as he brought to my attention the need to celebrate the luck we experience in the game — golf is about awarded luck and avoided misfortune. It's as thrilling as any gamble, where the split hair may make the difference.
One wonders what the discussion would have been back in 1880 had a few players suggested a meeting to either remove the wall behind the Road Hole or somehow create a stone "ramp" that would gently roll balls backwards, away from the wall and to a pleasant and fully playable lie. I think it would have gone badly for that group of "fairness" minded players. A few Scotches into the discussion, and I am certain they would have been thrown out by their ears.
-
;D ;)
Garland I think that's an excellent answer. Where I might disagree is on the construction of greens. The very best ones are difficult but allow for a skilled player to find a way to two putt. Anywhere this wasn't true eventually had to fix it particularly as green speeds increased over time. Remember having a putt on the fourth hole at Rolling Green many years ago that either went in or down the hill. Give me my wedge please LOL! By the way the golf course at Rolling Green is fabulous and one of Flynn's best works
What you are saying is that the greens are too difficult, because they can't be two putted. They are fair, because everyone faces the same challenge. Any greens that were fixed were fixed, because they were too difficult, not because they were unfair!
-
I was at a course this summer where the forward tees required a forced carry of 150 yards. My wife can no longer carry her tee ball that far. I don't like the word "unfair" but that was unfair. I had her tee it up in the fairway, but that was unsatisfying for her.
There were no other options? One day, I played with top players in my club from the back tees. When facing a forced carry on a par 3, I hit 8 iron right of the pond, and then wedge to the green. If the better player makes the carry, but can't hold the green on the hole, he has an extremely difficult up and down. I have seen players put it in the water while trying to get up and down from behind.
There were no other options. They were the most forward tees.
Reading this again allows me to recall playing Chambers Bay with John Kirk from the US Open tees at nearly 7700 yards. The fourth and fourteenth holes had carries to the fairway that neither of us could accomplish. Being steeped in the tradition of this website, we went about our business with nary a complaint about fairness. :) On the fourth, the rough we had to carry was sparse and whispy, so failing to reach the fairway still allowed us to find our balls and solidly strike them again. On the fourteenth, it was a different matter. We were greeted with thick ball gobbling rough for those failing the reach the fairway. Being a little dense, and accustomed to taking my lumps on the golf course, I aimed at my usual aiming point on the hole and swung away. Didn't reach the fairway, but managed to find the narrow mowed walking path from tee to fairway. :o Being wiser, John aimed for the vast bunker/waste area (3 acres worth as I recall Jay Blasi saying it was) to the left of the hole and hit it where he could find it and hit it again.
-
Re long forced carries with no options, ask my wife about Yale 9.
I do not think that she has ever used the word "unfair"; she accepts it for what it is. However, she does think less of courses with too many long forced carries to reach the fairway.
Ira
There ya go. Live and learn. If one feels that strongly about certain features being crap...don't go back. All courses don't need to be for all golfers.
Ciao