I wonder whether people prefer the scoring of darts or archery? In darts, the target of the triple 20 is right next to some very low scores. Go for the best and miss it, and get a low score. Whereas archery has a graduated scoring range as you move away from the bulls eye. Much more equitable and fair. I expect many on this board would accept the strategic nature of the darts board.
I also wonder with the big equity push for fairness and the concept of fair, graduated rough compares with the challenges thrown at players on the last few holes - Mickelson's two plugged lies, Ogilvy's sanded divot lie, then his second that comes up agonisingly short on 18 and backs off the false front. There are many of these where the results weren't 'graduated'.
I guess the other thing that struck me this week when looking at the courses and the game is the interaction of technology and tee to green architecture. If a miss from an off-centre hit was 35 yards difference (apparently) with persimmon and is now 10 yards (or was it 7) for the same miss with a titanium driver, then the effectiveness of a fairway bunker must be greatly reduced. In my mind, it isn't so much the distance that is the issue as the consistency which is reducing the effect of fairway bunkers.
And what does this push for equity encourage in the minds of some - more equitable hazards (these are generally filled with water
). No issues of corporate tents, spectator area rough, good or bad lies. Just an immediate and known result. No recovery, just an immediate on-the-spot fine. I wish it were not so. I am pleased that water hazards (to date) are not a big part of US Opens.
James B