News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Concept of "Fairness"
« on: November 30, 2006, 09:46:33 AM »
Mike's thread about bunker depths got me thinking that it might be worth sharing an excerpt from our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards.  

If I had someone read one thing in our book, this might be it.  For those of you who don't have our book, I hope you find this passage enjoyable (and if nothing else thought provoking).  

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.
 
« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 09:47:09 AM by Mark_Fine »

Tommy Williamsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2006, 10:07:05 AM »
I have always thought that "fairness" isn't a part of golf or of life.  "It is not fair!" is the cry of the young and immature.  Of course "it" isn't fair.  But when golf or life thows something dreadful at you it becomes an opportunity to be exceptional.  I love the story about the golfer on 18.  He proved to be exceptional and reaped the reward of success for it.
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

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2006, 10:09:38 AM »
Mark,

Agreed that we seem to forget that pulling off the difficult shot is a great moment, in favor of the best moment of the day being toting up the score, and perhaps (if we ignore our occaisional moving of the ball from difficult lies, self made putt concessions, and occaisional other rules transgressions (who walks back to the tee for an OB on a busy public course?  They would lynch you.) and perhaps, seeing a personal best in the last box.

The move towards fairness isn't new.  In fact, I think the complaining about fairness probably started somewhere the first day the first course opened......

Reading all books previous to your fine effort yields nuggets along the same line.  It just seems that every new fairness movement - in this case maintaining bunkers to play as easily as fairways, strikes us old timers as the last straw.  There will be many more straws to come, I assure you.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #3 on: November 30, 2006, 10:34:07 AM »
Tommy and Jeff,
Glad you enjoyed the passage.  Not everyone will agree but at least it might generate some thought.  

It is all part of the education process.  Hopefully we've done a little bit to create (or in this case resurrect) a perception about what hazards are and how critical they are to the game and spirit of golf.  


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2006, 12:16:19 PM »
Great stuff, Mark. Damn, now I got to go buy your book. ;)

The misuse of the concept of "fairness" goes even deeper, I think. When applied to golf courses, it represents  a fundamental confusion of categories, as they used to say in my philosophy seminars. If I had stood up and said the 12th at Course A is an "unfair" hole, they would have flunked me on the spot. And rightfully so.

Why? Because fairness is, essentially, a procedural concept. It is used correctly when applied to things like deals, trials, votes, elections, or competitions.

Things like bicycles, hamburgers and golf courses aren't fair or unfair. They just are. Though they can be used by human actors in unfair ways.

If you and I compete over the same course, then our competition is - by definition - fair. The course is just there. We faced the same obstacles, one managed them better than the other, and he won.

If, as at Shinnie a couple of years ago, some competitors played on watered greens and others played on dry greens, then that competition was unfair. The golf course had nothing to do with the lack of fairness.

I think the temptation to use concepts like fairness or equity comes from a reluctance to say what people really mean. What people are really trying to express is that certain features of the course were too hard or too easy. Recoveries from a bunker may be hard, impossible, dispiriting, easy, deceptive or whatever. The penalty for missing a shot may be severe or non-existant. But saying that a feature is unfair is simply avoiding the work of articulating something more precise.

The bottom line is that no combination of physical attibutes of an architectural feature make it "fair" or "unfair". Competitions played on those features can be fair or unfair. But not the features themselves.  

Bob  

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2006, 12:40:30 PM »
Bob,

Is it "the hand of man" that made Shinnecock #7 "unfair" in '04 or is it simply different players had different conditions regardless of the reason?

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2006, 12:58:54 PM »
Jim -

The two are hard to separate. It was because of the hand of man that the competitors faced different playing conditions at Shinnie that year.

But what if it had rained at noon that day? It would mean the conditions of competition were different for different players. But there's nothing unfair about that. No human actor was involved to create the different conditions. Wind, rain, drought are natural to any course and are rub of the green.

Bob

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2006, 01:04:49 PM »
Got it.

I struggle with a softer way to explain my views on fairness than "who cares, just deal with it".

Tha anecdote in Mark's post/book certainly illustrates the upside of "dealing with it". Overcoming an obstacle is always rewarding.

How can one enunciate the benefits of overcoming obstacles when determining policy within a club?


Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2006, 02:31:38 PM »
Mark,

I generally agree with what you are suggesting (I think).  In life or golf, no one should expect cosmic justice in an imperfect world, yet many do.   Further, they then demand all sorts of things to either guarantee it or "be made whole" when they feel slighted.

On the other hand, if the results of well struck and thought out shots are serendipitous, then golf is no longer a sporting game of skill.  One might as well go out to a place of beauty and just flip a coin for a couple of hours and save the green fee.

Golf is played on irregular surfaces and all sorts of things affect the flight and direction of the ball.  In my opinion, conditioning of the course should result in good shots ending up in good lies or positions most of the time.  One should not have to consider the probability of ending up in a divot on the preferred side of the fairway.  If one hits a bird or lands in an  occasional divot, it is just a rub of the green and undeserving of pity.

I have not read your book, but when it comes to bunkers, I do believe some consideration should be given to their size,  shape, and location in relation to the hole's characteristics.  On a long, tight hole, I think a fairway bunker should be larger, shallower, and maintained with relatively little sand.  Likewise, greenside bunkers on holes requiring long approach shots should be less demanding.  This doesn't mean that all short holes should only have deep, difficult bunkers and long ones the opposite, but an overall balance is more to my liking.  I do enjoy a few diffiicult, out-of-the-norm holes in my round.  Whether this is an issue of fairness, I'll let others decide.

Dan Boerger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #9 on: November 30, 2006, 02:53:24 PM »


I suspect (rather I should state know) people who post here have thought and wrestled with this concept lots more than I (particularly those ITB). To me, it comes down to a common sense test that should work "most of the time". Good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should be penalized. Obviously, "good, bad, rewarded and penalized" are subject to interpretation. But, hey, that's what makes the world go 'round. :)
"Man should practice moderation in all things, including moderation."  Mark Twain

Scott Witter

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #10 on: November 30, 2006, 03:03:27 PM »
This reminds me of an ongoing situation at a private club for which I did a large bunker project.  The project has been done for a year and the club has utilized the new bunkers for the past season, I am here in the northeast so our season is essentially done.  In September this year I received a letter from the club discussing a few concerns thay have with the bunkers, but what certainly caught my attention was the following:

"The issues we are having is related to bunkers that are not 'dished' and where the contour or shape of the bunkers are unfriendly and in fact unfair for a recovery shot to reach the green"

"We did not want to inhibit your styling or locations of the bunkers, we only wanted to dictate, that for the money we spent, they would be as playable and friendly as possible"

These comments come from a small group of members who were not on the planning, design or construction committee.

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #11 on: December 01, 2006, 05:56:53 PM »
Bob,
Sorry that you will have to go buy our book  ;)  Hopefully you will find that it was money well spent.  Judging by your comments, I think you will really enjoy it (hope so).

Jim,
I think you would find our book an interesting read.  Bill Spence, Superintendent at The Country Club at Brookline went so far as buying copies for his committee members to help educate them about hazards and to better understand what he is dealing with etc.  I don't know what policies you are trying to set in your club but maybe some of what we've written will help you out.  Feel free to email me if you want a copy or just check it out on line.

Lou,
You thoughts are typical of most.  Those who have our book will tell you it is a text book (that is what Wiley likes to publish) but we also tried to make it a fun and entertaining read.  If you looked through a copy, it might (maybe not) change some of your perceptions about hazards.  If you do get a copy, I'll be very curious to hear your ideas about it.  

Dan,
What is the definition of a good shot?  For example, you and your partner are faced with 30 foot putts.  His putt just falls in the cup and yours just lips out.  Did you both hit good shots?  Should you be penalized that one full stroke difference compared to your partner?  Did you hit a "bad shot" that deserved that "penalty"?  Golfers tend to accept this consequence but when it comes to other aspects of the game, they have issues.  I think you would find the book interesting as well.  

Scott,
Sounds like you need to do some more educating.  Maybe you need to get them a few early Christmas presents.  I have a suggestion  ;D
 

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #12 on: December 01, 2006, 06:29:36 PM »
Those who don't have Mark's and Forrest's book should obtain it.  It's a worthwhile addition to your golf architecture library.

Mark,

As the golfing demographic changed the concept of fairness took root and flourished.

A catalyst for its fourishing has been the introduction of democracy in club governance.

Every special interest group wants its purpose/agenda served, and "fairness" is high up on the list.

You may recall my thread on buffers fronting hazards.
These are nothing more than a concession to the concept of "fairness"

Golf today, isn't what it was, in many ways, and surely, the introduction of the concept of "fairness" has served to erode its principles.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #13 on: December 01, 2006, 06:59:17 PM »
Patrick ....fairness sucks and its hurting the game....someday [and hopefully not in my lifetime] this 'game' will probably have a rules personage that will follow along with a group [similar to a forecaddy], whose job will be to determine fairness during the course of a round....Hell, it might even be a Rules Robot.

Scott....I feel your pain....and if you really want to piss them off, try suggesting that the only rakes on the course will be those that maintenance uses on a weekly once over.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2006, 04:29:15 AM »
You may recall my thread on buffers fronting hazards.
These are nothing more than a concession to the concept of "fairness"

I thought the main reason for buffers (assuming you are moaning about wht fairway isn't cut to the hazard boundary)fronting hazards these days was environmental.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2006, 10:17:54 AM »
Pat,
Hopefully we've done a little bit to help restore the original perception and purpose of hazards.  Not many people buy this kind of book but we're hoping those that do have some influence.  

You may not be aware but at the National Golf Industry Show this coming year, they are going to be building a bunker on the show floor.  I suspect "fairness" will be discussed during some of the talks that go with it (right Forrest  ;)  )

You might find this interesting; I just spoke with a gentleman by the name of Ken Kubik.  He is President of Grass Roots, Inc.  What a great guy!  Since 1982 he has been giving out a golf book every year to hundreds of Superintendents in the markets his company serves (as a thank you for their business and for education purposes).  He just told me he will be giving out our Hazards book for his next gift.  I'm going to see him next week at the Atlantic City conference.  We need more people like Ken to help spread the word.  

Paul,
You know our opinion on "fairness".  Seems you feel the same.  I know what Scott is dealing with and all kidding aside, he really does need to help educate those members.  I think the work he did on that course looks great.  They just need to understand it better.  

Sean,
Those buffers are often put in to slow balls from entering the hazard  :(   They also come about from the narrowing of fairways.  A pet peeve of mine are "fairway" bunkers that are left anguishing out in the rough.  I call them "rough" bunkers.  We could spend a whole thread talling about this topic.  

 
« Last Edit: December 02, 2006, 10:18:57 AM by Mark_Fine »

Jeremy_Glenn.

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2006, 09:55:04 AM »
BCrosby,

I couldn't agree more with Mark Fine's article.  In fact, I wrote an essay on the subject in Paul Daley's third "Golf: A Worldwide Perspective".  

And I couldn't agree more with one you're saying.  A golf course just "is"; neither fair nor unfair.  

However, unlike your second to last paragraph, I disagree (for the same reason that a golf course just "is") that a feature on a course is too hard or too easy.  Once again, a feature simply "is".  Rather, it is our goals (making a four, reaching the green, etc...), that are realistic or not.

Here's a quote from my essay that I think you'd enjoy:

Quote
"The other concept where the term “unfair” is often used is with regards to the difficulty of a given shot and to, again, the sense of entitlement following a good stroke.  There are many design features that fall under the “unfair” label: a long par four with a small green; a wildly contoured putting surface; a bunker in the middle of the fairway; a severe slope in the landing area.  

Golfers each have a stubborn opinion of what type of hazards are acceptable and resent anything that catches them off guard.  Above all, they disapprove of any form of penalty following what they feel was a reasonably well executed shot – regardless of whether or not that shot was actually well executed, or even well planned.  While golfers accept and enjoy a certain degree of challenge, they quickly complain when that challenge exceeds their ability or expectations, even if room was provided away from trouble.  Most ironically, the better golfers are often the first to complain, even though they are the ones with the most ability to properly manage their game and the course.  

Yet contrary to what is often believed, the architect has no obligation to offer what a golfer believes is a clear and reasonable target.  Rather, a creative architect will offer a reasonable – though not necessarily obvious – alternative, while tempting the player to try the unreasonable.  And when the difference between reasonable and unreasonable is so deliciously balanced, the unsuccessful player is sure to claim an injustice."

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2006, 10:56:40 AM »
"Yet contrary to what is often believed, the architect has no obligation to offer what a golfer believes is a clear and reasonable target.  Rather, a creative architect will offer a reasonable – though not necessarily obvious – alternative, while tempting the player to try the unreasonable.  And when the difference between reasonable and unreasonable is so deliciously balanced, the unsuccessful player is sure to claim an injustice."

Jeremy -

Agreed, sort of. And well written.

My point (the one you disagree with) in my post above was simply my trying to figure out what most people REALLY mean when they call a hole unfair. I think in most instances you can substitute the words "too hard" or "too easy" or something like that and their sentence will actually convey something coherent.

I think it is quite proper to judge a hole as too hard or too easy. It is a part of how we judge the overall quality of a hole. Holes that are too hard or too easy tend to be boring holes. That is, they are not well designed holes.

Now we may disagree about whether a hole is, in fact, too hard. That is an empirical question. But there is nothing logically wrong with the describing a hole that way. OTOH, there is something logically wrong with calling a hole unfair. That's a logical non-starter.

As Lou notes above, if good shot after good shot ends up in trouble, he's not very happy. But I hope he is not unhappy because he thinks the course is unfair. I hope he thinks that it is simply too hard.  What's going on, I would suggest, is that Lou is playing a poorly designed course.

Making judgments about the quality of the gca, however, is not to make the category mistake of calling a course fair or unfair. No golf course has an obligation to be equitable. The only obligation a golf course has is to set the table for interesting golf.

Perhaps I am misreading your comment above, but you seem to be concerned that calling  a feature too hard is somehow making the same mistake as calling it unfair. It's not. Calling a hole "hard" is descriptive and appropriate. For example, my calculus mid-term may be too hard for me, but it's not unfair unless my test was not the same one everyone else took. There is nothing logically wrong with the sentence: "That test was too hard." Ditto for similar sentences about golf holes.

I do agree with your main point. The central mission of gca is to build interesting golf courses. That requires striking a balance between presenting difficulties and giving golfers options as to how they might engage those difficulties. And paying the price if they fail to pull it off. And not whining about "unfairness".

Bob

P.S. Your quote hints at something else too. The concept of "fairness" is the cornerstone of theories of "penal" design. The notion of just deserts and just punishments is the axis around which those sorts of theories turn. Proportionality. visibility, predictability, equitable outcomes are all part of the same view. The notion of difficulty, per se, is not central to their views. And, in the spirit of "fairness" (using the term correctly), that is why calling such views "penal", as Behr, MacK and others did, was probably misleading. That does not alter the fact that such "fairness" driven design principles were antithetical to the things Behr, MacK and others thought most important to good gca. But that is a topic for another day.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2006, 03:05:43 PM by BCrosby »

Jeremy_Glenn.

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2006, 07:42:20 PM »
Bcrosby,

I'm sure we agree for the most part.  In fact, I very much like your way of thinking: that a hole simply "is", and as such, cannot be considered unfair.   In that same vein (and perhaps this is where we disagree) a hole cannot be too hard -- or too easy -- if it simply "is".

The ONLY way I think terms like "unfair" and "too hard" should be used for a golf hole (or a golf feature) is when there is no option.  For example, the 17th at Sawgrass is, in my opinion, one of the greatest holes in golf.  However, if I was to play the TPC with my girlfriend, she couldn't play the hole, as she can barely get the ball airborne.  What is she to do??

Actually (as long as there is a reasonable option for anyone to play a hole –a small but important qualifier) I think calling a golf hole "hard" is nonsensical.  You said it yourself, and couldn't have said it better: a bicycle, hamburger, or golf hole cannot be unfair.  

I’ll add to that “Or hard”.  

What's an unfair hamburger?  It doesn't make any sense!  Of course not.  

What's a difficult bicycle?  That doesn't make any sense either!  Ah... But RIDING a bicycle might be difficult.  All of a sudden, we have a goal in mind.  

The 17th at St. Andrews isn't a hard hole.  The road hole bunker isn’t a tough hazard  Ah... but making a four certainly is.  That's a goal.  And getting up & down from the bunker most certainly is tough.  But that’s also a goal.  And if you think you should have a divine right to save you par from the bunker, the hazard might even be deemed… [gaps!]… "unfair!".

But I think we totally agree on one fact:  The word "unfair" is most often a very poor choice of word (when most people mean "unlucky" or "too hard").  And unfortunately, we are mis-using this word, much to the detriment of interesting golf courses.

Indeed, any architecture that isn't blatantly obvious for even the most brainless golfer is condemned as tricked up or unfair.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2006, 07:44:12 PM by Jeremy Glenn. »

Tim MacEachern

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2006, 08:20:22 PM »
Mark, I'll have you know that I treated my father, then 73, to a Scotland trip in 1998.  Muirfield and The Old Course were the finale.  When we played number 18 at The Old Course, his drive ended up on Granny Clark's Wynd.  He was refused a lift.  And we still talk of the birdie he managed off there.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2006, 08:21:25 PM by Tim MacEachern »

tonyt

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2006, 01:47:22 AM »
Tom Doak put it best for me when he mentioned golfers getting caught up in "entitlement". The ignorant expectancy of entitlement is the root of "fairness".

Everything that happens to you in life, jobs, family and the like are not fair and entitlement is not a consideration. Yet we are to live in a world where loved ones of no significant age can be whisked away from us without consideration, and yet an unfortunate lie in the fairway causes golfers to complain. It is a game. Oh that some people would occasionally remember that.

Jim Nugent

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #21 on: December 04, 2006, 04:21:02 AM »
Golf generally is a very fair game.  Luck does not play much a role in it.  The people who play best win about 99.99% of the time.  And that 0.01% they don't, the second best wins.  

Contrast that with a game like poker.  The world's best poker player can lose to a beginner in any given hand or even series of hands.  That could never happen in golf.  Tiger Woods always demolishes every beginning golfer, over a round, nine holes and probably one hole.    

I don't have a problem with golf course setups or designs being unfair.  Some of golf's rules strike me as absurd, and should be changed, to make things more "fair".  The scorecard (DiVicenzo and Pung) and Craig Stadler debacles especially jump out.    


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #22 on: December 04, 2006, 07:17:50 AM »
Tim,
Great story.  I don't know if your father is still with you but if he is, I suspect he tells about that birdie often.

Jeremy,
Nice essay.  I'll have to read the whole thing.  

Jim,
I think you are making the same points as many of us.  I just don't ever like to use the terms fair or unfair.  I replace those words with words like good design or poor design.  

Tony,
Amen!

Bob,
Good exchange between you and Jeremy.  I enjoyed the dialogue.  

Tim MacEachern

Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #23 on: December 04, 2006, 09:33:05 PM »
Tim,
Great story.  I don't know if your father is still with you but if he is, I suspect he tells about that birdie often.  

Yup, still going strong.  We'll be playing in Florida in a few weeks, I hope (out of Tampa).  I'm trying to get World Woods on the schedule!

Oh, and that was the last hole we played on the whole trip, which included Dornoch, Brora (they thought I was crazy to bring them there in a driving rain :) ), Cruden Bay, Gullane 1 and 2, North Berwick, Muirfield and The Old Course.  Not sure I'd substitute a course from that lot even now.

BTW, my philosophy is: 1) no "winter rules", even if everyone else is playing them, and 2) accept your shots that end up in divot holes with grace.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 09:35:32 PM by Tim MacEachern »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The Concept of "Fairness"
« Reply #24 on: December 05, 2006, 07:05:55 AM »
Tim,
Glad to hear your Dad is doing well.  Have fun in Floridand and remember to share our little concept of fairness passage with him.  I'm sure he will appreciate it as much as anyone.
Mark

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back