[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

I think its generally conceded that hazards got shallower over time (in most cases) and that some of that "banality" was aimed at keeping the duffer from piling up big scores at stroke play as a result of deep bunkers.  In match play, you can always pick up.

The rest of the post wasn't a direct response to yours, it was just a collection of thoughts on the subject that I have heard over the years, and some examples.

Another example of proportional penalty is the bunker guarding water, so that a near miss stays dry and a further miss gets more penalty in the water.

[Tom MacWood]

What architect best exemplifies the concept of proportionality?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
off hand no,  but let me think about it.  Maybe I erred in picking out that number   but lets say for the sake of discussion it is a carry of 90 yds  I would argue in that case the forced carry disproportionatley effects the beginner or high handicapper

Dave,

I understand what you're saying, but, the increased frequency in which the high handicapper interfaces with that feature is clearly reflected in his handicap.

High handicappers, INHERENTLY, have greater difficulty with every feature on the golf course, versus the low handicapper.

Yet, the beauty of the system is that it allows them to compete on an equal footing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam - Very funny! I like the post



175 yrd+ carries... Of the top of my head without pulling out yardage books.

1. BPB #5
2. BPB #8
3. Yale #1
4. Yale #10 Birritz
5. Yale #17
5. Friars Head #15
6. WF East #4 (close to 175)
7. CPC?
8. PV Hells 1/2 acre?

Not from the "Member's" or non-championship tees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Adam,

I think its generally conceded that hazards got shallower over time (in most cases) and that some of that "banality" was aimed at keeping the duffer from piling up big scores at stroke play as a result of deep bunkers.  In match play, you can always pick up.

The rest of the post wasn't a direct response to yours, it was just a collection of thoughts on the subject that I have heard over the years, and some examples.

Another example of proportional penalty is the bunker guarding water, so that a near miss stays dry and a further miss gets more penalty in the water.

Jeff,

I think you're correct with respect to the trend toward medal play influencing the degree of difficulty on the golf course.
Shallower bunkers, buffers of rough protecting hazards, etc., etc..
But, I don't see the proportionality in those features, they're just softer versions of what was or could be in their place.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I understand your point.  Perhaps even agree with it, based on my own post.  That said, IF you believe that, say, a nine iron ought to be punished more severely than a 2 iron approach, the green side bunkers MIGHT be 9 or 10 feet deep in a proportional based design.  If they are reduced to 3-5 feet so golfers can see and play out of them, then the proportional penalty of those has been affected. 

I will grant you that few follow this theory.  Even on the old Scottish courses where bunkers are deep and sod faced, I can think of few if any where the depth seems to vary consciously with the length of the approach.  But there are some examples - Pete Dye's famous Tip O'Neil bunker at TPC west is on a par 5 where the approach is nominally a wedge.  I don't recall too many Pete Dye bunkers as deep on long par 4 holes, but he has put water against long par 4 greens, a la TPC Sawgrass and many other 18th holes.

TMac,

I don't know why, but my iniitial reaction to your question was either Rees or RTJ.  They focused their US Open style bunkering at the LZ for good players and generally guarded all of them about the same toughness albeit with some variation.  Maybe that is more the "stern examination" rather than proportional punishment.

The more I think about it, the more I agree that striving too hard for proportional punishment is an albatross.  Those who raise the issue usually do so after finding themselves in a difficult spot, or having lost a shot or two from a difficult spot.  How many times have we heard someone bring up the topic prior to losing a shot?  This thread and.....ah.....well no where.

I agree with the concept of simply providing the widest variety of recovery options, and as far as possible, in the widest variety of areas relative to targets, i.e., having sand bunkers, grass bunkers, chipping areas, etc., left, right, back of the green.  Over time, that should eventually give all golfers who tend to miss a certain side a variety of recovery shots to try to execute, focusing on their own fun and improvement, rather than some theoretically perfect punishment for their golfing crimes.

[Dave Falkner]

Pat
off hand no,  but let me think about it.  Maybe I erred in picking out that number   but lets say for the sake of discussion it is a carry of 90 yds  I would argue in that case the forced carry disproportionatley effects the beginner or high handicapper

Dave,

I understand what you're saying, but, the increased frequency in which the high handicapper interfaces with that feature is clearly reflected in his handicap.

High handicappers, INHERENTLY, have greater difficulty with every feature on the golf course, versus the low handicapper.

Yet, the beauty of the system is that it allows them to compete on an equal footing.

Pat
I agree that the High Handicapper has more trouble with every feature and  that trouble is reflected in the handicap   However, I beleive certain types of features disproportionatley effect them  i.e. forced carries   and that  disproportionate effect  can serve to drive them away

On the other hand  my wife cleared a 80yd carry over water for the first time last week and she was disproportionatley happy at the result

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I understand your point.  Perhaps even agree with it, based on my own post.  That said, IF you believe that, say, a nine iron ought to be punished more severely than a 2 iron approach, the green side bunkers MIGHT be 9 or 10 feet deep in a proportional based design.  If they are reduced to 3-5 feet so golfers can see and play out of them, then the proportional penalty of those has been affected. 

Jeff,

The problem with your example is that it conveys universality to/with the approach and design elements.
Some golfers may hit 9-irons, but, others may hit 2-irons into that green.
Since the feature is static it can't accomodate both levels of play.

However, having said that, I do feel that the margins of error should be accounted for on LONGER holes.
Conversely, I have no problem with more severe features on shorter holes.

Caveat:  There are tees available for the range of golfers playing the hole

I will grant you that few follow this theory.  Even on the old Scottish courses where bunkers are deep and sod faced, I can think of few if any where the depth seems to vary consciously with the length of the approach.  But there are some examples - Pete Dye's famous Tip O'Neil bunker at TPC west is on a par 5 where the approach is nominally a wedge.  I don't recall too many Pete Dye bunkers as deep on long par 4 holes, but he has put water against long par 4 greens, a la TPC Sawgrass and many other 18th holes.

There was a time in the 60's when Pete was influenced by the Scottish courses and penal golf.
Wasn't golf in the U.K. mostly at match play ?

With the trend toward medal play and the emerging culture of "fairness" in the U.S., the days of penal golf were mostly numbered.

Generally, the more severe the hazard, the more strategic it becomes.

With shallow bunkers, the advent of the lob wedge and square grooves, some modern day green side bunkers don't present that much of a challenge, hence, they're less strategic.

I like deep bunkers.

I think they add a unique flavor and challenge to a golf course.

With equitable stroke control, does it matter if someone takes a 10 because of them ?

[Adam Clayman]

Aren't we getting very close to a formula? What great course follows any formula?

[BCrosby]

Jeff notes:

"The more I think about it, the more I agree that striving too hard for pro.....portional punishment is an albatross."

I think its more than an albatross. It's pretty much impossible. One (among other) problems is boundaries. At some point a bunker ends, a lake has a shoreline, a wall is where it is. Those boundary conditions mark sharp differences in rewards and punishments between more or less similar shots. There is a lack of graduation of results at those junctures.

Many people from beginnings of gca have thought that rewards and punishments should be proportional to the quality of the shot. Crane, for example, was one of those people. The concept has always been something of a cliche.  

As a simple moral precept, it's hard to argue with. You ought to get the outcome you deserve, right? If Charlie and I hit almost identical shots, we ought to get almost identical results, right? There should be no huge disparity in results, right? It makes intuitive sense to almost everyone.

The problem is applying such ideas to golf architecture. As TD and Jeff note above, applying such ideas is frought with very big problems.


Bob  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Aren't we getting very close to a formula?

What great course follows any formula?

Almost EVERY course I've played.

How many courses don't have multiple tees ?

Bunkers at the greens ?

Bunkers in the DZ ?

Par 72 ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Yes, even with multiple tees, trying to design anything based on a certain level of approach (by varying green size or bunker depth) has an inherent flaw.  If the average player can hit it a maximum 180-200 yards with a 3 wood, then we would probably have to design those things for that length approach, no matter how the good players was going to play it, I suppose.
I tend to agree that deep bunkers are more strategic to a point.  IMHO, a reasonably recoverable fw bunker +/- 51-66% chance) is certainly more tempting than one you play out of backwards.  Water or deep bunkers logically tell the player that the conservtive route is the only safe choice, reducing temptation and reducing effective choice.

I like the idea of a few well placed deep bunkers on a course to stand out and make a unique hole.  A steady diet of them wouldn't thrill me.

Adam,

Yes proportionality is a function of formuality.  I debate these things in my mind all the time.  While there are examples of great design that break all the rules and following any formula too rigidly leads to a.....well, rigid design, there is a place for some formulas in golf design.  Certainly the 0.2 SF of tee per round helps keep the turf full on tees, for example.  Even setting the multiple tees (sometimes decried on here) makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Even in green design, USGA and Pelz studies show that certain sizes are required for a majority of players to be able to hit the green (generally 15% of anticipated approach length in width and 22.5% in depth)  If we want most players to hit the greens on a regular basis (and frankly, I don't see why we wouldn't) size should bear some correlation to typical approach length.  That said, I usually design my holes as groups, like long 4, short 4, 5 and 3 and try to vary the green sizes within that group.  For example, using formula would make every long par 4 have a large green and wide fw.  I like one at least to have a narrow fw, another to have a wide fw but small green, and perhaps even one that has wide fw and big green with extensive contours.  Many golfers notice things like that when mentally computing the "shot values" of a course.

So, some things work to a formula, but its clear gca's have to break them occaisionally.  At some point, if you went out and designed a course "breaking all the rules" you would end up with a truly goofy golf course, so its important to know when and where to break them.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

GCA is formulaic to a degree.

Perhaps the differentiating factor is the topography.

I agree with the quantity and randomness of a few deep bunkers versus a constant diet of them.

Golf in the U.K seems to abound in bunkers that must be played out of, sideways, and those bunkers tend to be fed by the surrounding land, and, there seems to be a steady diet of them.  Hence, I would conclude that the culture of golf in the U.K. differs greatly from the culture of golf in the U.S.

Water and O.B are unforgiving hazards, bunkers allow for redemption, and, they tend to NOT be as expansive a feature as water and/or O.B., hence, interfacing with them tends to be rarer and more random.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff notes:

"The more I think about it, the more I agree that striving too hard for pro.....portional punishment is an albatross."

I think its more than an albatross. It's pretty much impossible. One (among other) problems is boundaries. At some point a bunker ends, a lake has a shoreline, a wall is where it is. Those boundary conditions mark sharp differences in rewards and punishments between more or less similar shots. There is a lack of graduation of results at those junctures.

Many people from beginnings of gca have thought that rewards and punishments should be proportional to the quality of the shot. Crane, for example, was one of those people. The concept has always been something of a cliche.  

As a simple moral precept, it's hard to argue with. You ought to get the outcome you deserve, right? If Charlie and I hit almost identical shots, we ought to get almost identical results, right? There should be no huge disparity in results, right? It makes intuitive sense to almost everyone.

The problem is applying such ideas to golf architecture. As TD and Jeff note above, applying such ideas is frought with very big problems.


Bob  

Bob
What Crane advocated was more equity than proportionality. He did not advocate progressively severe penalties for progressively bad shots.

Crane disliked OB and water becasue he felt it produced an unfair or overly severe penalty. He disliked trees because of the randomness or potential unequalness of the penalty, the same idea held true with his dislike of heavy undulations. He advocated conistent turf conditions -- consistent well maintained fairways, greens and rough. All of those ideas, with the exception of his goofy ideas on undulations, had fairly broad, although not unanimous, support before he came up with his formula. Golf had been moving in a fairness direction long before Crane.

[Adam Clayman]

Conversely, I have no problem with more severe features on shorter holes.

This preference is what caught my eye as being formulaic, or leading to one.

Pat, have you ever seen or heard of a course without formal teeing grounds? Have you ever tried to play a hole from anywhere other than the formal teeing ground?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Of course the biggest hazard in US golf is rough on either side of the fw.  Sand bunkers take up maybe 2 acres on a typical course, whereas rough takes up at least 50 acres.

[BCrosby]

"What Crane advocated was more equity than proportionality. He did not advocate progressively severe penalties for progressively bad shots."

Tom - The whole point of concerns about proportionality are to assure "equitable" or "fair" results. Proportionality means nothing if it isn't about equity. They are not separate concepts, though one is broader than the other.  

"Crane disliked OB and water becasue he felt it produced an unfair or overly severe penalty. He disliked trees because of the randomness or potential unequalness of the penalty, the same idea held true with his dislike of heavy undulations. He advocated conistent turf conditions -- consistent well maintained fairways, greens and rough. All of those ideas, with the exception of his goofy ideas on undulations, had fairly broad, although not unanimous, support before he came up with his formula. Golf had been moving in a fairness direction long before Crane."

Tom - One more time. I make no claim that Crane was the first to come up with such ideas. To the contrary, they were ideas that were in the air years before Crane picked up his first golf club. Nothing, I repeat nothing, in my Crane piece turns on the notion that he was the first to come up with such ideas. Capice?

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, Equity being code for fair, don't you believe that those who espouse fairness in their designs are missing a rather large boat? Is it fair that Mr. Bergestol doesn't provide fairway on the 16th hole at Bayonne past the fairway bunkers? It just is.

What could be more fair than everyone playing the same course on the same day? Having the course play fair, also, is too subjective and should be ruled out as not being quality golf because after multiple plays is too boring.

Have we not proved that over the last 70 years thanks to all the venues that led to the recent renaissance? (and the writing of the Confidential Guide)

The modern designs have for the most part followed this idea of equity and the facts are; Golf, as a sport, is having trouble competing with other games. Since we all know this is the greatest sport, because it means so many different things to so many different people. This elasticity in sport is unrivaled and what makes golf so great.
edit;
As I wrote that it occurred to me that this elasticity should be the foundation of Tom's BWT. Tournament golf at the highest being a completely different animal, and logically should be the least fairest courses to the rest of us. Kind of like Oakmont? 

[TEPaul]

Great thread so far guys. I'm going out to mow the lower forty and I'll be back to eagerly peruse. I could try taking a laptop out on the tractor but if I did that you may never see me again!

"Here Lies TEPAUL
Crashed into a Tree
and Breathed his Last
While Reading Golfclubatlas.com
on his Tractor
while Mowing
the Lower Forty"

[Michael Whitaker]

Jeff notes:

If Charlie and I hit almost identical shots, we ought to get almost identical results, right? There should be no huge disparity in results, right?

Bob - I'm not so sure you and Charlie should expect to get "almost identical results." For me it is the uncertainty in the outcome of a shot that makes golf interesting. Sometimes I get a better outcome than I expect, sometimes worse. What is the ultimate outcome of striving for "almost identical results?" Indoor courses created from a standardized design?

As you can see from my signature line below, I have been fascinated by this concept of "proportionality" since Tom Doak made that statement in Nov 2005. Joshua Crane was obviously a sportsman frustrated by the "unfairness" of golf courses which, unlike other sporting venues, couldn't be standardized. The desire to have fields of play consistently reward the "better" golfer is understandable if one approaches that concept from the opinion that golf is first and foremost an athletic competition and that, like traditional athletic endeavors, the most highly skilled and best conditioned athletes should usually prevail. As we know, that does not always happen in golf. Why? Because the result of a shot is often disproportional to the quality of the strike... the ball bounding onto the green after bouncing off a rock in the final match of the 1911 US Amateur is a perfect example.

I agree that the concept of "proportionality" is mainly an attempt to justify "fairness" in golf. The concept of proportionality was first articulated to me by a friend who was discussing the merits of The Ocean Course at Kiawah Island Golf Resort. He felt the course was "unfair" because, in his words, "it doesn't matter if you miss the fairway by an inch or by a mile it is the same penalty... death." He felt the penalty should be proportional:  miss just a little, you should be punished a little... miss by a mile and you should be hit over the head with Maxwell's Silver Hammer. Over and over I heard him say, "this isn't fair."

I guess the ultimate question is:  Should it be the responsibility of the course to always reward "good" shots (or to do so in an equitable manner)? In my mind this would make for boring golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks for your posts on this thread.  Something to add to the mix in your thinking about the knife-edge that is designing challenging yet accessible golf courses: I can only speak for myself, but my experience with most of the folks I play with is that we can usually tell when a bad result or bad score is our fault as opposed to that of the course/design -- and you might be surprised at how rarely we blame the design for our own shortcomings.*

Peter

*Except for the 8-10 handicaps -- for some reason, they seem always to be bemoaning some aspect of the design that is preventing them from shooting the scores they think capable of: too much fescue (for the long but crooked driver), not enough run-up shots (for the experienced but low-ball hiter) etc.

[BCrosby]

Adam/Michael -

The basic notion is that people over the decades have thought proportionality was important - not for itself, but because of the ends that it served. Those ends are varioulsy described as sporting equity or fairness.

For Crane there were other design considerations that were also important in achieving such goals. I summarized Crane's take on those other considerations as "control" and "predictability". Like proportionality, those concepts were seen as keys to assuring "fair" outcomes. They are not ends in themselves. There might be other ways than "CP&P" to parse those concepts (I am happy to consider a better acronym), but what is important is the context in which they are used and the purpose they served. Crane saw them as elements of a larger program to make golf courses more "equitable".

You and I might disagree about some or all of that project. But there is no denying that such "fairness" based ideas have a tremendous appeal now and have had a temendous appeal since the days of yore when people started thinking about gca. Which is why I think they are worth unpacking. Joshua Crane happens to be a great vehicle for doing that.

There are all sorts of ways to critique Crane's ideas. My piece limited itself to the critiques of Behr, Croome and other contemporaries of Crane. I think those old dead guys did a darn good job of countering Crane, btw. But there are other ways to argue with Crane. Some of which you guys noted.

Bob

  

[Tom MacWood]

"What Crane advocated was more equity than proportionality. He did not advocate progressively severe penalties for progressively bad shots."

Tom - The whole point of concerns about proportionality are to assure "equitable" or "fair" results. Proportionality means nothing if it isn't about equity. They are not separate concepts, though one is broader than the other.  

"Crane disliked OB and water becasue he felt it produced an unfair or overly severe penalty. He disliked trees because of the randomness or potential unequalness of the penalty, the same idea held true with his dislike of heavy undulations. He advocated conistent turf conditions -- consistent well maintained fairways, greens and rough. All of those ideas, with the exception of his goofy ideas on undulations, had fairly broad, although not unanimous, support before he came up with his formula. Golf had been moving in a fairness direction long before Crane."

Tom - One more time. I make no claim that Crane was the first to come up with such ideas. To the contrary, they were ideas that were in the air years before Crane picked up his first golf club. Nothing, I repeat nothing, in my Crane piece turns on the notion that he was the first to come up with such ideas. Capice?

Bob

Bob
Where did I say anything about being first? That was not my point. My point was that there was a general trend toward fairness before Crane, and that his ideas were more or less mainstream. When his system was introduced (and the criteria it was based upon) it caused little or no buzz, a year or two later when he published his actual rankings and St. Andrews came in last, that is when all hell broke loose, and even then it was limited to about four or five objectors.

[BCrosby]

BTW, I talk about these ideas in Part IV. I need Ran to get off his duff and post it.

Bob

[Jeff_Brauer]

I believe Ross said that it should be harder to get out of a fw bunker from its outer edge than the edge nearer the fw, which is "proportional punishment."  So, IMHO, "fairness" is an old concept that has continually marched forward.  It probably started about two days after the Old Course opened, or whenever the first golf match was lost, and every year, people figured out ways to make golf more fair. 

Like the distance debate, at any given point, some folks are going to be inclined to say "enough is enough" and many golf writings through history have espoused the counter point of view.  Actually, I think Behr was countering Ross's idea of proportionality in a letter that opened "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()