News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2023, 03:11:47 PM »
It would seem that the worse shot is the one that carried the bunker but is the long grass. He knew before he hit the shot.
Where there is no love, put love; there you will find love.
St. John of the Cross

"Deep within your soul-space is a magnificent cathedral where you are sweet beyond telling." Rumi

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2023, 03:23:43 PM »
I find it strange when you start begging for the ball to get in the bunker because the turf around it is much worse.
Professional golfers have been doing that for as long as I've watched golf (1970s).
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2023, 04:35:15 PM »
Rob,


Yes, with Better Billy Bunker and Best Sand (or similar) I have seen remodeled bunkers where the ball hits the face and rolls to the low spot every......single......time.  Golfers love it, and there is a lot less raking to do, LOL. :o
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #28 on: July 05, 2023, 08:26:26 PM »


The thoughts I have on the subject are limited to a discussion about video game design (applicable here) by Justin Ma, where people inherently do not like when the perceived output-randomness (randomness that happens after a decision) as creating negative outcomes, but they do like output-randomness as creating positive outcomes. It's why we have a culture of raking bunkers, and people are livid from ending up in a divot in the middle of the fairway. For better or worse, most people just don't like seemingly random distinctions as giving them a negative outcome.

I am a bit hostile to this psychological quirk of humans, but I see no reason to push back against the data these game designers have. People will be inherently hostile to this sort of bad-luck-for-better-shot design pattern, so I think it's best to avoid it in the first place. The research has also effectively made me abandon my thoughts that we should have smaller, but unraked bunkers to save on money, as it would probably just infuriate players. I wish we had one or two courses that had design patterns like this so we could experience them for ourselves, but I could see how the inherent hostility people had to them would make them non-viable.




The first paragraph I selected above is one of the most ridiculous observations I've read about human nature, and your response to it is one of the most depressing.


How can you have randomly "positive" outcomes while excising randomly "negative" ones?


I copied the quote below from a web site for you.  Unfortunately, I think you are right, that many designers and many clients have this need to be liked:


The need to be liked by others is a deep-seated psychological vulnerability. Itís often driven by low self-esteem and a fear of rejection.




David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #29 on: July 05, 2023, 09:26:36 PM »
The thoughts I have on the subject are limited to a discussion about video game design (applicable here) by Justin Ma, where people inherently do not like when the perceived output-randomness (randomness that happens after a decision) as creating negative outcomes, but they do like output-randomness as creating positive outcomes. It's why we have a culture of raking bunkers, and people are livid from ending up in a divot in the middle of the fairway. For better or worse, most people just don't like seemingly random distinctions as giving them a negative outcome.

The first-order example i thought of specifically for the essay was that "fun course" bunkers should kick away from the bunker in every direction, so that if you end up just next to one, you don't accidentally kick into it from bad luck.

I am a bit hostile to this psychological quirk of humans, but I see no reason to push back against the data these game designers have. People will be inherently hostile to this sort of bad-luck-for-better-shot design pattern, so I think it's best to avoid it in the first place.
The ball goes where you hit it.  It doesn't "accidently" kick into a bunker.  What you are proposing is to just make courses easier. There still will be weird hops and disadvantageous outcomes because unlike video game designers, golf course architects can't code the course so that 85% of balls that hit trees bounce towards the fairway, or that divots don't exist or that greens never harden due to course conditions, etc. 


The idea that you would take the time to build a bunker but then spend more time shaping the surrounds to negate the impact of the bunker seems bizarre to me. 
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Erik J. Barzeski

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #30 on: July 05, 2023, 09:28:34 PM »
I like and agree with the last two posts.
Erik J. Barzeski @iacas
Author, Lowest Score Wins, Instructor/Coach, and Lifetime Student of the Game.

I ignore Rob and Tim.

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #31 on: July 05, 2023, 10:42:05 PM »
The ball goes where you hit it.  It doesn't "accidently" kick into a bunker.  What you are proposing is to just make courses easier. There still will be weird hops and disadvantageous outcomes because unlike video game designers, golf course architects can't code the course so that 85% of balls that hit trees bounce towards the fairway, or that divots don't exist or that greens never harden due to course conditions, etc. 

So, my idea here is that there is an inherent randomness to every golf shot no matter what level we play at. There are many forms, but for my purposes here, I just mean to talk about shot dispersion patterns as a form of output randomness. In my defense, it's very obvious that course designers play with dispersion patterns as a form of shaping risk profiles to many shots. Typically this comes in the form of bunkers short-right and long-left of a par 3 green, designed to punish the standard misses.

The discussion of luck vs skill is a long one, and I plan to get into it in depth, as I don't see them as in opposition to each other, but as compliments in game design.

The first paragraph I selected above is one of the most ridiculous observations I've read about human nature, and your response to it is one of the most depressing.

How can you have randomly "positive" outcomes while excising randomly "negative" ones?

I copied the quote below from a web site for you.  Unfortunately, I think you are right, that many designers and many clients have this need to be liked

So, again, these thoughts are just ones I have from outlining the long form essay I'm working on.

I already have in my outline a bit about how reputational effects can negate these predispositions that humans seem to have. I have specifically noted St Andrews has holes that are know exactly because they play with this type of luck/randomness. #11 (Heathery In) with it's many hidden fairway bunkers is a hole specifically about those bunkers, so the added risk is seen as a positive by most (though some still seem to disdain bunkers that will punish a "good shot").

>How can you have randomly "positive" outcomes while excising randomly "negative" ones?:

I would point to the Postage Stamp in prevailing wind as a hole that is generally low-skill and high-luck (only 114 yards from the white tees). My argument is only that as the wind effects the shot, it creates (at least some) output-randomness, and the "negative" outcomes this output randomness can be enormous. If we were to replace the deep, penal bunkers with slopes that kicked toward the green, we would have "positive" outcomes from randomness of where the wind moves the shot.

This is just an example of course. I think the Postage Stamp is a high reputation hole that I desperately want to play eventually. I agree that removing the negative externalities of the wind would make the hole boring and unfun. My only point is that your average weekend warrior would probably grumble as their scorecard gets wrecked simply by ending up in the coffin bunker. I think the same casual player would love a chance at birdie after misjudging the wind gusts.

I hope I made it clear that I obviously think this type of reaction is backwards, but I don't know how else to explain all the hatred of fairway divots and bunker footprints that your average player harbors (especially when this sort of thing is well studied in the gaming industry).

Note: I keep using the term output-randomness in opposition to input-randomness, which is randomness before any action is made. A good example of input-randomness is how different tee locations can effect a shot (which the player has no control over), but this can be especially interesting at places like Ballyneal, which can give the winner or loser some control back.
« Last Edit: July 05, 2023, 10:59:17 PM by Matt Schoolfield »
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

mike_beene

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #32 on: July 05, 2023, 10:51:52 PM »
I was under the impression that the course in North Korea feeds everything to hole for a positive outcome . Doesnít seem any more satisfying than a pickup game with Rodman and dictator.
Perhaps my Big 12 education is holding me back here?

Matt Schoolfield

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #33 on: July 06, 2023, 12:27:12 AM »
I was under the impression that the course in North Korea feeds everything to hole for a positive outcome . Doesnít seem any more satisfying than a pickup game with Rodman and dictator.
Perhaps my Big 12 education is holding me back here?
My discussion of this isn't whether one is "good" and the other is "bad." It about designing your course/tournament for the audience. If the dictator wants good kicks, I say give him good kicks. When a broad US Open audience generally won't like output-randomness leading to penal results, I have no reason to tell them they're "wrong."

I prefer the Open Championship to the US Open for exactly these distinctions. I prefer more bad-luck-and-recovery golf to narrow-fairway-and-thick-rough that most of us here do. That said, just because I like it more, doesn't mean my views (our views) aren't generally niche.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2023, 12:34:12 AM by Matt Schoolfield »
Building an encyclopedia of golf courses that anyone can edit: Golf Course Wiki
Some strong opinions on golf: Wigs on the Green
I really think golf culture should be more like beer culture than wine culture

Kyle Harris

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #34 on: July 06, 2023, 07:10:07 AM »


The thoughts I have on the subject are limited to a discussion about video game design (applicable here) by Justin Ma, where people inherently do not like when the perceived output-randomness (randomness that happens after a decision) as creating negative outcomes, but they do like output-randomness as creating positive outcomes. It's why we have a culture of raking bunkers, and people are livid from ending up in a divot in the middle of the fairway. For better or worse, most people just don't like seemingly random distinctions as giving them a negative outcome.

I am a bit hostile to this psychological quirk of humans, but I see no reason to push back against the data these game designers have. People will be inherently hostile to this sort of bad-luck-for-better-shot design pattern, so I think it's best to avoid it in the first place. The research has also effectively made me abandon my thoughts that we should have smaller, but unraked bunkers to save on money, as it would probably just infuriate players. I wish we had one or two courses that had design patterns like this so we could experience them for ourselves, but I could see how the inherent hostility people had to them would make them non-viable.




The first paragraph I selected above is one of the most ridiculous observations I've read about human nature, and your response to it is one of the most depressing.


How can you have randomly "positive" outcomes while excising randomly "negative" ones?


I copied the quote below from a web site for you.  Unfortunately, I think you are right, that many designers and many clients have this need to be liked:


The need to be liked by others is a deep-seated psychological vulnerability. Itís often driven by low self-esteem and a fear of rejection.


Tom Doak,

I think you may be having a bit of a harsh reaction to it. When I first read it just seemed to be a denser re-write of Max Behr, which is an impressive feat in itself considering Behr's style.

The word "game" here is doing most of the heavy lifting, too, in that here it means "simulated conflict."


I dabble a bit in wargame design (there are at least a dozen "WargameClubAtlas" type webpages out there and these types of discussions (and criticisms) are real and oft debated). If we were to design a wargame for say, Normandy, the first decision to make in the design is "Should the Axis forces have a chance at repelling the invasion?"

The second question is how many players are in the game? If two are playing opposed, the Axis player - if it is deemed that the Germans SHOULD have a chance at repelling the invasion - must have at least a chance of using skill within the game system to do so.

If the game is solitaire, you either make the player play the Germans or you design the system to "play" the Germans in response to the player.

You excise the random negative outcomes by how you frame the game. We know, historically, that the Germans did NOT repel the invasion. But there was a non-zero chance they could. Coincidentally, almost 80 years of research on the matter has lead historians to believe that the non-zero chance of repelling the invasion was a lot closer to zero than you'd think. In any well-regarded Normandy simulation, the Allies are landing. In an well-regarded Normandy game, the Allies have to try to succeed. But the Axis player shouldn't feel completely tied down by the system, either, and giving the Axis player a few random positive outcomes within the game does well to give them the feel of a chance, especially in a solitaire setting. In any game, a random positive for one side is going to be seen as a randon negative for the other. But you can excise the feeling of randomness by forcing the player to use skill to take advantage of the random outcome.



And that last statement is doing the heavy lifting in my response here. A bad, random bounce happens (think hitting a cart path or sprinkler head) and the result is less than ideal. Is it less than ideal in that the cart path was alongside OB stakes or water so the game has interjected too much and the player can no longer use skill to recover from the bad bounce?

Or is it less than ideal because now you're significantly farther away from the target than you would have been had the random element not been present? If so, I think we can both agree that as long as the player can get a club on the ball there is a non-zero chance of excising any bad out come.

So, in other words, this is a long winded way of a answering your question by saying:

Get better.
http://kylewharris.com

Constantly blamed by 8-handicaps for their 7 missed 12-footers each round.

Thank you for changing the font of your posts. It makes them easier to scroll past.

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #35 on: July 06, 2023, 10:11:24 AM »
The idea that you would take the time to build a bunker but then spend more time shaping the surrounds to negate the impact of the bunker seems bizarre to me.
Wouldn't this practice fall under the philosophy "look hard play easy"?
If its good enough for MacKenzie . . .

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #36 on: July 06, 2023, 10:19:16 AM »
Ben,


Many architects have tried to make bunkers harder to hit, at least on public courses.  Mac's big thing (I think, at least after 1930 or so) was to use bunkers sparingly and only to challenge better players.  The advent of multiple tees brought the fw hazards into play for everyone on the tee shot, so then, what to do?


Not all of that was player related.  The 1950's generation was big on elevating at least fw bunkers a foot or two above natural ground, mostly because it makes them more visible than digging down from natural grade.  And some of the visibility concern was also related to surrounding residential and their views, where applicable.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #37 on: July 06, 2023, 11:28:09 AM »


Not all of that was player related.  The 1950's generation was big on elevating at least fw bunkers a foot or two above natural ground, mostly because it makes them more visible than digging down from natural grade.  And some of the visibility concern was also related to surrounding residential and their views, where applicable.


Right from the start when they started building inland courses they had to deal with the issue of just digging a pit for a bunker and seeing it fill up with water. They quickly (prior to WWI) learned to build a mound ancd then build the bunker into it so the bottom of it was above the natural level of the ground.


Niall

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #38 on: July 06, 2023, 12:01:56 PM »
Niall,


Also very true.  I should have mentioned that factor as well. :)   However, if you build a self contained depression, it needs some kind of drainage either above, at, or below ground.  I had a few instances of having to build a bunker up just to get enough depth to run the 4" tile at 1.5-2% to the nearest drain outlet, i.e., creek or pond.  I never minded the look of a fw bunker a bit above the fairway, but always preferred the front of green side bunkers to be at natural grade, and then built into the side slope or fill pad.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

David Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #39 on: July 06, 2023, 12:07:39 PM »
The idea that you would take the time to build a bunker but then spend more time shaping the surrounds to negate the impact of the bunker seems bizarre to me.
Wouldn't this practice fall under the philosophy "look hard play easy"?
If its good enough for MacKenzie . . .
That's not the same as building a bunker to repel balls. 
"Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent." - Judge Holden, Blood Meridian.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Penalize the better shot.
« Reply #40 on: July 06, 2023, 01:58:15 PM »
The idea that you would take the time to build a bunker but then spend more time shaping the surrounds to negate the impact of the bunker seems bizarre to me.
Wouldn't this practice fall under the philosophy "look hard play easy"?
If its good enough for MacKenzie . . .
That's not the same as building a bunker to repel balls.

Quite. It makes no sense to build and maintain a bunker to not perform it's intended function.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2023: Clyne

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back