[John Kirk]

Hi Paul,

I'd characterize the hole you describe as difficult and not terribly enjoyable.  Is the player with a slice able to hit two perfect slices, and get around the tree on the right, over the hazard and onto the green?

I suppose a course with out of bounds on one side of every hole would be unfair.  Course contouring seems less a factor in determining equitable treatment of golf shots than trees, lakes and out-of-bounds stakes.

Rhyming on purpose for your amusement.

[PThomas]

John , that slicer would have to hit two PERFECT shots to negotiate that hole, a feat that i think almost all high handicappers couldn't do on that hole

a course that has several holes that might be considered unfair is SHivas' favorite , Tamarack in suburban Chicago

water - i think almost all if not all of them are laterals - on 14 of the holes..and it gets windy out there so  anyone who starts a ball curving one way can kiss it goodbye if the wind is going that way too

Stone Eagle is definitely better

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

I'll say this again -- my below quote ... "It does mean that courses which provide no predictability cannot be deemed great........ If all good shots are penalized and all poor shot are rewarded then the very nature of the design itself needs to be called into question."

Was meant to provide the idea that great courses ACTUALLY DO provide some sort of predictability and, yes, even proportionality -- define by me as being able to discern by degree shots that range from well played to the max all the way to the other extreme with shots utterly without any merit whatsoever. Great courses can differentiate such shots because of the plethora of details brought into the mixture by the sheer creativity and brilliance of the responsible architect.

There will be random elements of chance but that's fine with me because luck is part and parcel of any game. The issue becomes one of concern when luck and randomness becomes the core of any course.

I'll give you an example of a course I felt randomness and luck was too much of issue is the Cashen Course at Ballybunion. The layout is loaded with so much unpredictability that whether you hit good or bad shots the outcome is far from certain and likely stands on its head many times.

[Sean_A]

I really struggle to identify individual features which are inherently unfair.

Let's try this one:

A par 3. 195 yards long, with a broad, rounded mound that is part of the front of the green, centered a couple short of the surface.  Virtually every ball which lands short of the mound gets redirected away from the green.  The only players that can reliably score on this hole are those who can hit a soft 180 yard shot.  The studs hit 5, 6, or even 7 iron.  Some medium strong players can hit 7 or 9 wood, or a 4 hybrid.  Otherwise you are out of luck, so to speak.

Another extreme example:

A 450 yard par 4, way downhill, through a big valley, with the grass cut short everywhere.  Every drive that moves forward starts rolling down the hill to a big bowl 275 yards off the tee.  Beyond the bowl, the fairway falls off sharply into a pond.  Is that unfair?

John

You struggle to find an unfair hole or course because there is no such thing.  The term "fair" can accurately be described as the opposite of prejudiced, complying with the rules or perhaps honest.  I don't see how a course can be described as the opposite of any of these descriptions unless there is a secret rule book for archies.  I think people look for ways to objectify their opinions by using the term "unfair" when what they really mean is they don't like it.  To just fess up and say they don't like something is closer to the definition of fair than to say something is unfair in a field where fair has nothing to do with design.  Besides, we should be encouraging archies to take risks with their designs.  Sure, according to many they will get it wrong a lot when veering from the straight and narrow, but sometimes we are gonna get gems which ride the fence of controversy and either reawaken what architecture can be like or once in a great while create something darn near original. 

This idea of predictability exists on ALL courses.  Its only a matter of learning the course well enough to make accurate predictions.  Can anybody name one course that after half a dozen goes you couldn't begin to predict far more accurately than not?  Again, people use terms like random when what they really mean is they don't know the course well and/or they aren't good enough to execute the shots.  Even if we account for some shots having so many elements that it is very, very, difficult to predict the outcome (assuming you hit the shot you intended), these are, in my experience, so rare as to be statistically insignificant.  I can't think of one course that I would remotely describe as random and I have played some crazy ones.  Besides, I can't believe there is an archie out there who would even try to design random outcomes.   In short, the use of the word "random" has no place in describing architecture.  If used, it would need qualifiers which essentially discount the true meaning of the word.

Ciao 

[Dan Herrmann]

One of the more facinating aspects of this site is to gauge the thoughts / opinions of people over a period of time. I've wondered when people opine on the different courses they play whether or not they have a certain patrticular checklist on what is clearly acceptable and what is not.

For example, the concept of wide fairways seems to be in vogue with plenty of people. Ditto the concept that bunkers must "look" a particular way in order to have relevance as "true" bunkers. I'm sure I can add a few more items of this type.

I ask this sincerely -- do people who post here generally believe in a one style aspect for all golf course designs? Is the feeling here that there is one particular style that fits all situations? I often wonder how elastic / pragmatic many people are because there seems to be a genuine narrowness in what is acceptable and what is not. Or are people more dogmatic and very narrow in what range of courses can really be deemed acceptable.

The only real stipulation that I hold for any course I play is whether or not consistently the good shot is rewarded proportionate to the level of skill in which it has been executed. On the converse side -- a course must punish poor shots - again in direct proportion to the lack of execution that's been  achieved. Other than that -- I'm really wide open in what goes.

I am well aware no course than can provide 100% time after time exact outcomes with each swing because there is always an element of chance / outcomes with any swing. As it should be in my mind.

To give one example -- I would find it interesting to see what type of people can be both fans of the works of Tom Doak and Jim Engh. Both are contemporaries of each other and there's no doubt from the courses I have played both men are very talented, yet they offer a unique and distinctly different style. Are there people who are fans of both (realizing no architect, including these two gents hits home runs with each design) and would they play both styles on a consistent basis if the opportunity presented itself?

Thanks ..

Matt,
Without variety, it's nothing more than tennis courts or bowling alleys.    I LOVE variety!

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:

That hole at Stony Creek you describe is not a good one.  However, if it can be played reasonably via a very conservative strategy [three seven-irons to get home at the loss of only one stroke], then I wouldn't call it unfair.  I would hesitate to call ANY single hole "unfair".  As John implies, it's only when an architect keeps beating the same drum that I think a course adds up to unfair.

[Doug Ralston]

Paul:

That hole at Stony Creek you describe is not a good one.  However, if it can be played reasonably via a very conservative strategy [three seven-irons to get home at the loss of only one stroke], then I wouldn't call it unfair.  I would hesitate to call ANY single hole "unfair".  As John implies, it's only when an architect keeps beating the same drum that I think a course adds up to unfair.

It adds up to unplayed!

Just wanted to say your welcome. When I restarted this thread, it was because I though it was interesting to see how willing certain ideologues were to entertain ideas other than those they espouse. Does golf architecture become like religions? Mine is what is worthy and others must be demeaned.

In the early part of this thread I had discussion of my friend and his preference for trees and water on courses, and his discomfort with such couses as Gailes [MI] and Wild Horse. I do not think his views are less valid, but that should not do anything to discourage those who created those designs. The breadth of our choice is, IMHO, the true glory of golf's popularity in today's market.

Am I claiming all design is 'eqaully' valid? No. But how to make your ideas appreciated if not by contrast with others?

And I like trees in play on a course too! So sue me!

Doug

[Rich Goodale]

All golf courses, golf holes and even golf shots are fair, in that each has an ideal shot for each player, according to his or her abilities and propensity for risk.  All golf courses, holes and shots vary (again according to the player) in terms of the penalties for failing to either conceive or execute that ideal shot, or more often in regards to chasing the ideal when the mundane will be more "cost effective."  Combined, those two aphorisms define strategy.

Simple courses offer few alternative paths for the player, regardless of ability or risk tolerance.  Good courses offer each some alternative paths, with varying risks and rewards depending on ability or risk preference.  Great courses offer a myriad of alternative paths, but those for the accomplished player are much subtler and harder to see--they must be learned.  The alert average player can see those alternatives and tack his or her way to the hole without significant frustration and with more than a few smiles.

I'm not sure if Topm Paul meant this, or understands this, but his "Big World" is far more in the minds of the millions of glolfers than it is in the plans of the architects who create our venues.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not sure if Topm Paul meant this, or understands this, but his "Big World" is far more in the minds of the millions of glolfers than it is in the plans of the architects who create our venues."


Richard The Philosopher:

Good point. All those millions of glolfers have feelings too, don't they?

[Rich Goodale]

Tom, as you probably do not know, glolfers are just golers who do care about spelling.

[JMEvensky]

Tom, as you probably do not know, glolfers are just golers who do care about spelling.

That's just really,really good.

[Anthony Gray]

Tom, as you probably do not know, glolfers are just golers who do care about spelling.

  I could not have stated this better Rich.

  Anthony

[PThomas]

Paul:

That hole at Stony Creek you describe is not a good one.  However, if it can be played reasonably via a very conservative strategy [three seven-irons to get home at the loss of only one stroke], then I wouldn't call it unfair.  I would hesitate to call ANY single hole "unfair".  As John implies, it's only when an architect keeps beating the same drum that I think a course adds up to unfair.

but i dont know if that hole can be "reasonably" played with three 7 irons Tom..off the tee, yes...but the trees and fairway narrow down quite a bit where the landing aread would be for the 2nd shot, so much so that if you push the shot right you will be stymied for sure  and probably even so on the left side

this discussion makes me think of the hole in your book where someone hit the trees on one side of the fairway and the ball flew off and hit the trees on the right side too..on the fly!

also the hole at Firethorn where the trees from both sides almost connect at their tops

[Kirk Gill]

Does an open mind help or hinder the golfer?

Does a closed mind narrow your focus onto exactly what needs to be done with each shot?

Or does an open mind allow you to easily get past "rub o' the green" situations and embrace whatever happens?

Or does it not matter one damn bit?

[George Pazin]

George:

How bout this -- we disagree on BM. End of story.

George, you missed my point by a country mile. Black Mesa APPEARS harder than it actually plays. If you played the course a few times it's likely (assuming your mind is open to such things) you might have a revisionist feeling for the course itself. Stranger things have happened. Before getting out of sorts -- consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, your take on the course comes from a limited exposure when compared to someone else who has seen otherwise and played with people of the handicap level you represent and said so to me.

We disagree on one aspect of BM. End of story.

How about this: I will agree that perhaps BM appears harder than it plays if you will agree that there are high handicappers - not beginners, but guys who can actually hit the ball in the air with good frequency - who might struggle to get around without losing a half dozen or so balls.

[George Pazin]

The further we delve into this discussion, the more value I place on beauty.  I'll assume the architect is trying to offer a balanced test, and I'll do my best to minimize my score.  The bad bounces will even out.  Give me firm, fast turf, so I can watch the ball roll, and some beautiful scenery inbetween the shots.

174 posts and no real world examples of unfair holes.  You may not like them, but they are all fair. 

Love this post - concise and insightful.

Here is the biggest problem I see with Tom D's paradox:

When an architect really strives to make things perfectly "fair" with each shot meeting its just reward, he must make it so obvious that he would likely remove all interesting features - land would have to be uniformly smooth (wouldn't want one guy's striped drive to get a good stance and another's a bit funky), greens would have to be uniformly boring (wouldn't want one guy's close shot to end up with a tricky putt while another's faraway shot was relatively straight), etc., etc. Look how hard it is for anyone to identify this mythical unfair situation that Matt has created - the only way it could really be accomplished is to dumb things down in the extreme.

In the end, John Kirk's right in his above observation, imho. This observation ranks up there with the time-required theory in its deep insight; score 2 big ones for John.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

With all respect -- let me try again and see if this works for your understanding.

You qualify your reply with a "perhaps." Black Mesa looks harder than it actually plays. Much of that has to do with the design element / natural topography that people see. Baxter Spann artfully created driving zones that look like they are nearly impossible to handle but the reality says otherwise once you know the hole(s) in question. The 1st is just one quick example on a hole that looks "scary" but plays far more benign once you know what's involved. I can reference plenty of others.

The visual intimidation often times causes high handicappers to flinch with their respective games. If you -- and others that you mentioned -- played the course a few times you would easily understand that.

There are courses in Florida where H20 is so dominant and far more penal and penalizing than what you get with Black Mesa. My God, I could place the type of player you are mentioning, and, given your own statement on losing balls, they would likely say the same thing about Pine Valley or Bethpage Black or any number of other courses held in the highest of esteem.

The idea that Black Mesa causes people to consistently lose "a half dozen or so balls" doesn't hold up for me and the people I have discussed this with at the course itself -- and those folks include the higher handicap types you referenced.

Might it just be George -- you are initimidated by the surroundings and it caused you to have such a bad day? Might it just be that a one time visit can produce a skewed view of the course?

Of course, your mind is open mind to such possibilities -- right ?

  

[George Pazin]

You qualify your reply with a "perhaps." Black Mesa looks harder than it actually plays...The 1st is just one quick example on a hole that looks "scary" but plays far more benign once you know what's involved. I can reference plenty of others.  

Most high handicappers don't control trajectory all that well, especially on the first tee. I can hit the ball over that little mountain quite easily. But I'm a high handicapper, so occasionally I don't. Thanks for providing a perfect example of our disagreement over how HHers play the game - seriously. I don't mean to be rude, but I think you refer more to mid-handicappers than high. I believe there are plenty of us who can get around in the 90s that are not consistent enough to really be able to appreciate a course like BM.

The visual intimidation often times causes high handicappers to flinch with their respective games. If you -- and others that you mentioned -- played the course a few times you would easily understand that.

I played it twice, with 6 very thoughtful golfers, as well as discussing it with even more very thoughtful golfers. I wasn't the only one who thought the course might be too much to handle, even by significantly better golfers than me.

There are courses in Florida where H20 is so dominant and far more penal and penalizing than what you get with Black Mesa. My God, I could place the type of player you are mentioning, and, given your own statement on losing balls, they would likely say the same thing about Pine Valley or Bethpage Black or any number of other courses held in the highest of esteem.

I have played maybe a half dozen courses in Florida. I'm most familiar with TPC of Tampa, played it 4 times many years ago. Let's just say I don't love water-logged courses either, and don't particularly find them suitable for HHers, either.

As for PV and BB, I am under the impression that they were designed specifically to test the expert golfer. I don't think anyone recommends them for the high handicapper, who is the entire crux of our disagreement with BM. I think BM is a wonderful course - pretty, very interesting green complexes, etc. - I just don't think it's a course that HHers should seek out without knowing what is in store. I did not have a bad day there, I just didn't enjoy it as much as other courses I've played.

Your mind is open to the possibility that not everyone thinks BM is the perfect golf course -- right?

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Let me once again go through all of the points you mentioned -- given your desired openess.

Black Mesa appears harder than it actually plays. Allow me to once again point out I am speaking about high handicap types -- so I understand English as you provided it initially.

One other thing -- it's critical for people to ALWAYS play the appropriate tee box for their respective game. I would think you are not referencing your day at Black Mesa with tee positions that fall outside that limitation?

For example, the 1st hole requires carry of roughly 220 yards FROM THE BACK TEES. The high handicap types you are referencing SHOULD NEVER play from those boxes. If they do and then subsequently bitch and moan about the carry the issue is more about their own stupidity than anything else.

If the 1st is played from the 339 yard tees (the next box up) the carry is nothing more than 175 yards. I don't see that as being draconian by any stretch given the fact that par-3 holes are played at that length.

George, to borrow your expression -- "I don't mean to be rude" but if such a 175 yard shot is impossible then move up to the next boxes at 311 -- where the carry is nothing more than roughly 150 yards.

I'll say this again -- there are plenty of holes with ample WIDTH at BM and if you or others of the type you are talkng about -- play the appropriate tees the idea that lost balls are going to happen over and over again is not accurate.

George, I've discussed the course with dozens and dozens of regular people on my several different visits to the course. They nearly all chimed in that the visual intimidation is more mental than anything else. You know many people don't see the unique elements to certain courses -- examples of TOC and Pinehurst #2 come quickly to mind -- Black Mesa does likewise in getting into people's heads to feel one way and as a result it can cause high handicappers to flinch when future rounds would likely show how out of place their original thinking was.

PV and BB can be played by high handicap types -- provided they can tackle the assignment from the appropriate tee boxes. Until BB was dramatically altered to be prepared as a US Open site each and everyday --the overall width of the courses is quite hospitable. The issue lies in the player being able to overcome all the "visual" obstacles that bombard your senses. Higher handicap types can easily -- so can lower handicap types at times -- be influenced with all this additions to their senses. The slighest mental doubt can wreak havoc on the physical side when called upon to execute.

High handicap types should seek out BM with the proviso I have mentioned several times over. The look harder but plays easier element is one of the main arrows any architect can shoot against players of all types. Black Mesa does that in such an alluring way that few really grasp it after a one or two time play.

I don't doubt your statement you find the course "wonderful," but it's hard to square that with your ending statement that somehow the course fails to connect with higher-handicap types because of the frequency of lost balls and the like. I don't see that dimension at all and my comments come from a much deeper pool of contacts and range of players than you might imagine.

I never said BM was perfect -- in fact, very few, if any courses, are. I did say a select visit with a particular day on the course can skew one's overall impressions. It's also possible you might change your mind on a subsequent visit. Your mind is open to that possibility -- right George? 

[George Pazin]

When you have a giant hill in front if you, 175 yards is not the issue, trajectory is.

Isn't BB the course that has a sign saying it is for expert golfers?

Is a course really that good if a high handicapper has to play it at 5000-5500 yards and tee off with 7 irons?

It is very possible that BM is much easier than I think/thought. It is equally possible that it is harder than you think.

Your mind is open to the possibilty - right, Matt?

I'll leave you the last post, this is getting boring and I know you like the last word - just don't ask me any more questions and we'll agree to disagree - on both BM and who has an open mind.

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Please -- the "hill" in question is nothing more than a small mound. My God man, they have stuff across the pond which is really a HILL to overcome. You make it sound like you need to carry the ball over Mount Everest.

Did you ever think George -- that the hole psyched you out ?

BB has a sign that says BB is "recommended" for skilled players but that doesn't mean others cannot enjoy the course. The issue, in the event you glossed over it, is how BB is prepared for daily play now. The course, and I have opined on this, is way too narrow, with way too much rough and the like.

When BB was set-up prior to the recent revival -- you had a course with miles of width on just about any of the holes. So long as players played from the appropriate tee boxes you could navigate your way around the layout -- albeit the potential was there for high scores to be had without sound thinking and execution - but it was done through a playing field relative to one's skill level.

Let me point out another Pazin fallacy - the idea that forward tees are for whimps. Black Mesa has boxes set at the following lengths ... 7,307 yds; 6,719 yds; 6,277 yds. Not only do the distances vary but the angles for the holes changes dramatically. The 1st again being a solid example -- from the champ tees the angle is much more problematic with the furthest of carries involved. The other tee boxes present a far different situation in line with those levels of players. So the silly idea that you need to play a course of 5,000-5,500 yard and tee off with a 7-iron is incorrect on your part.

Black Mesa looks harder and plays easier -- the widths are present to accomodate such players. If you had any case -- it's in the area of the putting greens and the nature of their slopes. The tee-to-green mechanics are far more playable than what you get at PV and BB.

What amazes me is how you can judge a course with such certainty by just two rounds of golf and still hold to the inaccurate belief that losing half a dozen or more balls at BM is a common occurrence. That's not the case. The course provides multiple playing angles, sufficient width and alternate means to reach intended targets.

Baxter Spann elevated mental tortures to throw golfers off their games. Check out the corresponding slope and course rating numbers for BM from the middle and far forwartd tee locations and you can see what I mean. That's assuming your open to that possibility.

[George Pazin]

 

C U

 

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,

A friend just pointed out where you wrote above, 'And then there is Mr. Morrissett, who thought he could stay above the fray instead of speaking the other half of his opinions, but who is now both trying to develop a new course and taking money for promoting another.  (I wonder if that will get censored! After being in China last week I have learned it is done more often than you'd think.)'

I am DELIGHTED to learn that I am taking money for promoting another! Can you share which course? Sounds like I am due some $$ and I am just wondering from whom? Again, this is great news to learn but it would be even better if it were true 

Cheers,

[Tom_Doak]

Ran:

Sorry to hear you are not getting paid for promoting that course.  My mistake -- and my sincere apology.

As for the other part of that post, I look forward to your withering critique of any of the courses you saw in South Africa.  They couldn't have all been great, could they?

[TEPaul]

Come on Ran, don't give up that easily. Get Doak to name that course that paid you and then go to the owner and tell him Doak says he owes you money and if he doesn't pay you that both he and his course will be in some really deep dodo.

How much money does that guy owe Mr. Morrissett, TomD?

Ran is a good analyst and review writer Tom, but he sure got confused on the tee shot area of your #15 at Pacific Dunes. He started screaming; "Just look at this area, it's enormous and not a single thing out here to penalize a golfer!"

I just said:

"Have you even bothered to look at what goes on with the next shot, you architectural genius?"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()