Unfair!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Generally, I think the "consensus" among competitive golfers is that if there is NO way to reach and hold the target, its unfair.  

So, a putt that will roll 30 feet past or back, no matter how you stroke it is unfair to them.  If the cup is set three feet from a 3 foot stair step in the green, but you could "lay up" to the high hide for a tap in, then its probably fair, although even some golfers would say you should be able to make any well struck putt.  I think a course full of layup putts wouldn't be very interesting, but they are acceptable in limited doses.

I am surprised no one has mentioned fairways that won't hold a shot, but they fall in the same category and only escape criticism if the course is set up by the R&A, USGA or Masters, with a good example being Olympic, where 17 fw was just not holdable with any tee shot through it's length and caused the most problems.  Now, if you could lay up with an iron and hold the fw, and still reach the green, no big whup, but the entire length would be unfair, IMHO.

A reverse slope green with frontal bunkers, rather than a reasonable way to bounce a ball in is unfair, but if fw exists in front, its not.

I agree with cary - maybe unfun is a better word. And it must be taken in context, and it is a grey area.  As alluded, a few examples of unplayable shots might be loved on a course.  The first one on a course might be fun, but the tenth would be unfair!

And while some love the quirk of an unplayable shot, I have to believe that its not golf to its highest competitive level if the course is purposely or accidentally designed or maintained so that a shot from the fw or green generally towards the hole is not possible to execute.  (Hazards not so much, but still generally true here as well)  I do disagree with the concept that every shot should be makeable, if perfectly executed, though, including putts.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

We could leave very early and take a small sidetrack off 81S and visit the Cascades.  Bad news is that it would be best to pick me up at my house since I'm flying back to Philadelphia.  I'll leave whenever you want.  It is about 11 hours to Atlanta (13 hours according to Mapquest--they don't know how you drive).  As long as we aren't late to Bob's house in time for dinner, I don't care how early we leave.  Thur and Fri night we'll be in Athens, GA in care of our gracious host.

Jeff,

Are you saying these fairways could not be held even if the shots were shaped properly?  I haven't really seen fairways so severe.  I am not convinced anything is unfair in golf course architecture and think the concept anathema to golf.  What maintenance practices would you settle for on such fairways to make them playable?  Longer grass?  More moisture in the landing area?

[BCrosby]

I will pick up the cudgle one more time...

Someone please explain to me how a thing like a golf course can ever be fair or unfair?

Is it treating one player differently from any others? Is it giving out different information to one player but not others? Is it giving a competitive advantage to one player over another? Are there features that some players are exempted from playing?

I'll make this easier. Explain how any inanimate object can be fair or unfair. Baseball cap? Tennis court? Garter straps?

It is one of the strengths of GCA that people talk rarely about golf courses in terms of "fairness." Let's keep it that way.

Bob

[archie_struthers]

  8

I was lucky/unlucky enough to have to build a golf course, (twisted Dune southern NJ) and if there absolutely would be less concerned with fairness if ever I did another.

My recent trip to Ireland only solidified this opinion, as quirky/unfair/ blind shots have a new place in my heart.

Certainly the evolution of a great architect, in my opinion, would see a move towards less convention, less replication of the norm. You see flashes of this in many of the favorites of this site, hope they continue to take more risks ar their careers progress.

[Craig Sweet]

"I was playing in the Amateur Championship at RCD in 1999, at the other qualifying course, Kilkeel when one of my playing partners hit a putt from short of the hole that horseshoed out and passed him out on the way down the green. It was quite funny at the time, and fortunately for him during a practise round. The pin position was towards the front, seven or eight yards on, of a green sloping from back to front.

I experienced a similar situation on the 18th green at the Portland CC during the Senior Am.  Many of the greens are sloped at Portland, and I think the crew had cut and rolled them to the point that balls putted to the hole, even beyond the hole, stopped, and then rolled back off the green.

The same type of thing has happened at Seminole, but, I don't find it to be an unfair element in the architecture, just a conflict between maintainance or course preparation and the architecture caused by flawed judgement."


These quotes came off a Pat Mucci post...in both cases they appear to blame maintinence for how they maintain the greena nd where they put the pin....

My question is, why do architects design greens with slope like this?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Wayne,

I was consulting at a course last week where they had two fw that just couldn't hold a shot, even when their near tour pro level club pro experimented with cutting shots into the banks, etc.  So, it does happen.  For another famous example, think of Cherry Hills 18, which when cut to todays heights may not hold tee shots in the fw.

In techincal terms, fw that have more than 5-7% cross slope (depending on mowing heights) probably won't hold a shot if also level or downhill in the landing area.  If the tee shot is into an uphill slope, or has a bluegrass or long cut fw, that might go to 9-10% if uphill, and 8-9% if downhill in the LA as well.  Some gca's limit cross slope to 4-5% just to be safe.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, Jeff.  I appreciate the information.  

In response to the increased distance golf balls were being hit, Flynn proposed keeping the tee shot landing areas softer if hole lengthening was not practical.  I was wondering if softening up the fairways just in the LZ would be an option on courses where current mowing heights prevented balls from staying in the fairways.  Not that it is a good idea, but a solution of sorts.

[ChipRoyce]

Back when I started playing, I used to cry unfair and deride blind shots, hard to hold greens, etc...

At this point in my life, I don't think there's really such thing as "unfair".

There is however a big difference between stupid and tough.

A tough hole / shot, etc... is one that is difficult, if not impossible to make. That said, all golfers who play the hole have the same challenge. Even if its low % to make the shot, there would be recovery areas to play back to a hole and possibly make par. For instance, the redan at Shinnecock during the last US Open, in general was tough, but fair. Only when the greens became unputtable did it verge on stupid.

Stupid is when a there's no sense to a hole. No recovery areas, an island green that can't hold a shot, greens too fast for the slopes. All are examples where you've taken any skill out of the game and took away the fun and/or made it all about luck.

[Dan Boerger]

I like the idea of using "unreasonable" instead of "unfair". It may be semantics to some, but it does convey the inherent "roll of the dice" that (among other things) make golf so interesting. Even  putts that come back to your feet could be avoided if people had the good sense to simply roll it in the hole!

All kidding aside, there's usually plenty of variables with weather, course condition (divots, spike marks, mud on the ball, incosistent rough, the list is almost endless ...) that I think it's reasonable to assume those that set up a course should do so "trying" to reward good shotmaking, while "trying" to penalize a poor shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

These quotes came off a Pat Mucci post...in both cases they appear to blame maintinence for how they maintain the greena nd where they put the pin....

My question is, why do architects design greens with slope like this?  

Would you have them design perfectly flat greens ?

When Donald Ross designed Seminole about 80 years ago, he never envisioned that someone would replace the grass with new cultivars that can be mowed to low heights producing speeds of 11 to 13, nor did he ever think that greens would be rolled and cut low to produce and maintain these speeds.

It's not Donald Ross's fault that golfers putt off the greens into bunkers or the fronting fairway, it's the fault of those who decide policy for conditions of play.

It's the fault of those who crave the need for speed.

Why do you think so many wonderful putting surfaces have been disfigured, muted to accomodate higher speeds ?

Winged Foot, which had/has some great greens, and many other courses have smelled the ether and will continue to smell the ether as their greens are surgically altered/disfigured/muted to accomodate higher speeds.

The character and challenge of these greens is being eliminated in the name of speed.

As to the placement of the hole location, especially questionable or over the top locations, who should we blame, the cart girl ?

[Eric Morrison]

Blantantly ridiculous hole locations which are put somewhere just to be devious is not what I was referring to...the ones that in the morning, when the hole is cut, seem challenging, but "fair", but then become "unfair" due to windy conditions, etc. is more what I was gearing my response to. Putting a hole in a location that is known for producing that effect is not right, and will get you immediate #$%#? and really make everyone mad. It does take time to learn every nuance of one's greens...and then you have to train the hole setter, who might not even play golf, the same...not always easy.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Thanks, Jeff.  I appreciate the information.  

In response to the increased distance golf balls were being hit, Flynn proposed keeping the tee shot landing areas softer if hole lengthening was not practical.  I was wondering if softening up the fairways just in the LZ would be an option on courses where current mowing heights prevented balls from staying in the fairways.  Not that it is a good idea, but a solution of sorts.

Many gca's have proposed grinding out relatively level pads at the LZ, or in parts of the LZ and using more contour beyond that to challenge better players.  More contour at 300 yards is a better choice than building more expensive hazards for the 1% of golfers who hit it this far.

This sounds like an extension of that theory (or possible it predates it)  I think most players are in favor of highly contoured fw and other equalizing challenges about five yards longer than their average drive. (maybe ten to fifteen in they are planning on buying a new driver next year)

I even heard Trevino say once that holes ought to have those level areas at slightly different distances and fw sides on each hole so drives are a matter of distance control and position rather than pure distance.  I do think it would be interesting to encourage shots at all distances from 200-300 via fw contour.  On the other hand, if rough doesn't discourage bombing it, I gather a little extra fw contour wouldn't have much effect.

Sorry for topic drift.

[Tom_Doak]

I had forgotten the 13th green at Macrihanish until we played there again yesterday.  I'm sure most golfers would call it unfair.  It has a huge false front at the front (not quite as severe as 14 Augusta but perhaps steeper) and then it falls away to the back at probably 4 per cent.

I'm sure it was designed with the wind in mind.  Into the wind, you can fly it past the break point and it ought to hold okay or at least not go skidding away.  Downwind, you run it up and take your chances.

It's severe, but not unfair.

[Ken Moum]

The character and challenge of these greens is being eliminated in the name of speed.

As to the placement of the hole location, especially questionable or over the top locations, who should we blame, the cart girl ?

It sounds like you are in favor of blaming a combination of factors, including silly green speeds pushed by members/committees, an emphasis on course setups that "resist scoring", and inattention to by whoever chose the hole locations.

The famous 18th at Olympic Club in the US Open is a classic example.

If that's what you meant, I agree.

I also agree that there's no reason to bash the architect. But the initial post in this thread didn't mention the architect.

Ken

[Padraig Dooley]

What about unfair hazards? Do they exist? I don't think I've come across one yet.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

That type of green brings up another point - inconvenient truths (I am not good enough to play that shot) vs. unfair!  I suspect that its easier today than when first built, with more watering (although still less in the US) and better clubs and balls, but golfers will still complain, that its an "unusual" shot they can't practice.  I would respond, "that's the whole point!"  

Its still an interesting philosophical golf question.  With today's clubs and balls, distance control through the air is something that can be mastered, subject to wind.  Golfers who have mastered that to any degree would question whether exact (apparently, you must get it to stop dead right at the top of the ridge in front of the green) distance control of a running shot, with the added factors of judging ground slope, is "fair."   Most of the old guys wrote about the value of a small mound just in front of the green testing just that kind of shot.  

I think it makes an interesting shot that should be incorporated on many courses at least once, pehaps twice with varying winds, if the land allows, for variety if nothing else, but some folks really value consistency.  They probably pass up local fare to eat at McDonald's when traveling.

Yet another point is about severity.  How practical or enjoyable are large doses of severity, even if fair?  Personally, I think some - like 17th at Sawgrass - that you are very aware are coming at you is great.  A steay diet would be too much for most golfers and golf courses.