[Carl Rogers]

Some examples of unfair might be:

-A 6 foot deep bunker with no sand in it so the golfer can not escape and thus finish the hole and the round.

-The DA at PV #10.??

-Or other forced carry with no drop area on the other side.

-A 6' elevation double tiered green with the pin location within 5' of the top tier edge.

(Tom D, today, I was behind a foursome of high handicappers that lost 2 or 3 balls each at the 18th at Riverfront.)

[Ken Moum]

Ken:

I understand what you are saying, but if you're having a bad day you might find a lot of things at North Berwick unreasonable ... and you would be missing the boat completely.

Actually, I played North Berwick at the end of two weeks of downright frightful golf--where I heard a caddy say, "We'll get tha'," after a ball disappeared over the gorse far too many times,  and didn't find it to be unreasonable at all.

I think I must not have adequately presented my thoughts, because don't think anyone with a brain should consider anything about N. Berwick unreasonable.  Hell, there are a handful of courses within 75 miles of me in Topeka that I consider far less reasonable than NB--starting with the fourth on on Brauer's Colbert Hills.

There's a huge difference between weird and quirky stuff like the wall at Pit, or the green at Gate, and 20-yard-wide fairways with hay on both sides.  The former is fun if you have the right attitude, the later is just torture.

Not that I don't understand where that kind of thinking comes from. One of my travelling companions, used the term "goofy golf" after her chip on the 16th sloshed back and forth in the gully.  But she only had to hit hard enough, and she'd have been fine.

Unreasonable, in my mind, is a pretty high bar.  

K

[Sean_A]

Some examples of unfair might be:

-A 6 foot deep bunker with no sand in it so the golfer can not escape and thus finish the hole and the round.

-The DA at PV #10.??

-Or other forced carry with no drop area on the other side.

-A 6' elevation double tiered green with the pin location within 5' of the top tier edge.

(Tom D, today, I was behind a foursome of high handicappers that lost 2 or 3 balls each at the 18th at Riverfront.)

6 foot bunker with no sand defines Yeamans Hall.  I doubt many players can cope, but it ainlt unfair.

Why is it unfair not to have a drop area on the far side of water? 

I don't see why having a pin close to the edge of two tiered green is unfair, no matter how much the elevation change is. 

As I wrote earlier,m this is stuff folks may not like, but have nothing to do with fairness.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

[[/quote]

6 foot bunker with no sand defines Yeamans Hall.  I doubt many players can cope, but it ainlt unfair.

Why is it unfair not to have a drop area on the far side of water? 

I don't see why having a pin close to the edge of two tiered green is unfair, no matter how much the elevation change is. 

As I wrote earlier,m this is stuff folks may not like, but have nothing to do with fairness.

Ciao
[/quote]

Can I get out  of the bunker in any direction?  Can the golfer finish the hole?

If there is no ball drop on the other side, can the golfer finish the hole?

[Ken Moum]

[

6 foot bunker with no sand defines Yeamans Hall.  I doubt many players can cope, but it ainlt unfair.

Why is it unfair not to have a drop area on the far side of water? 

I don't see why having a pin close to the edge of two tiered green is unfair, no matter how much the elevation change is. 

As I wrote earlier,m this is stuff folks may not like, but have nothing to do with fairness.

Ciao
[/quote]

Can I get out  of the bunker in any direction?  Can the golfer finish the hole?

If there is no ball drop on the other side, can the golfer finish the hole?
[/quote]

I might agree that some of those are unreasonable, depending on the specifics, and the audience.

For instance, a forced carry of 190 yards with no way around isn't unreasonable for pro, but it is for regular men's club event, and surely is unreasonable for almost any amateur women's event.

Putting the cup 5 feet from a drop off, is hardly ever unreasonable.  It's the ones that are on the precipice itself that cross the line. Even worse, are hole locations where the ball can't be placed without it rolling 6 feet away.

Hole locations that demand you to place your ball below the hole to avoid a three putt aren't unreasonable... unless they're tucked behind a hazard, without any room to place your approach. 

We occasionally get that on the 18th at my course where a front hole location is behind a bunker, with an extremely steep green from front to back, and a prevailing wind that blows down the slope.  If the green is fast and the wind is blowing hard, it i spossible for putts from below the hole to have no chance of coming to rest for a tap-in.  Unless they land in a ball mark, they roll back off the green.  I've only seen it once or twice in 12 years, but it can happen--and it's unreasonable.

But people will bitch endlessly even if the hole is higher on the green and their ham-handed attempt from above the hole rolls 15 feet past.  I have no sympathy for them. They know you can't be above the hole, and their inability to play the correct putt on the green is more of a factor than the slope.

K

[Sean Leary]

We have a green at my home course that has a front and back tier. The difference between the two tiers is probably 4-5 feet, with the back being higher. With a middle pin, if you hit it on the top shelf, you cannot keep it within 20 feet if you miss the hole, no matter what the greenspeed is. Do you consider that unfair?

[Terry Lavin]

I would say a setup is unfair if the margin between success and abysmal failure is too narrow.

[Simon Holt]

Terry

Have you not just defined risk and reward?

[Simon Holt]

Terry

Have you not just defined risk and reward?

Actually Terry, if I had taken the time to read your post correctly I would have realised that you meant how the course is setup rather than the design of the hole.  I have no problem at all with the latter but semi agree with you on the former.  My apologies.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about 4 at Colbert Hills. Is it fair to ask for a layup from the longest players to create a 200 yard second shot on a par 4?  We did build a kick in bank from the right to allow an alternate shot, and it appears we didn't get the forward tees exactly right.  Moreover, perhaps we just should have pushed more dirt in the valley beyond the landing area, but then, we wouldn't be following the natural contours, right?

As to whether its fair if you have to play out of a bunker sideways, I agree with you its fair (providing it doesn't happen too often) but the point is whether its desireable?  Its fun to advance the ball to the hole.  Its not fun to have to advance it backwards more than once a decade to have a story to tell.  Some here would advance such hazards as some kind of examination of golf we all ought to be forced to sit through, like a rectal exam, but if its recreation for most of us, why would we think that is fun, which should be the object of the game and most courses?

I know you are not arguing that tough courses ought to be the norm, but rather if a bad break happens, golfers should shut the pie hole, accept it and move on.  I agree. 

I once posted a thread titled "What if I hit it here?" which is the extent that many players get into architecture.  Sometimes "here" doesn't allow you to get close to the hole, and some of those times, the gca meant it to be that way.  You can't have strategy without it being more or less favorable to hit the ball one place over the other........

[Ken Moum]

Ken,

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about 4 at Colbert Hills. Is it fair to ask for a layup from the longest players to create a 200 yard second shot on a par 4?  We did build a kick in bank from the right to allow an alternate shot, and it appears we didn't get the forward tees exactly right.  Moreover, perhaps we just should have pushed more dirt in the valley beyond the landing area, but then, we wouldn't be following the natural contours, right?

Actually, I don't think the problem with #4 is the effect on long hitters.  I play it from the white tees, and the correct play to be safe is to hit a seven iron off the tee, followed by a 220-yard second shot:



i don't get to Manhattan much so I have only played it four or five times, and never came up with a plan until I played in a scramble there last year with doctor who plays it 15-20 times a year. He's about my length, and that was how he always plays it. And he's right.  I've tried to squeeze a few more yards out of the tee shot, and end up in the ravine, or in the deep rough on a downslope. I suppose that's where more dirt would have been helpful, even if all you did was kick up the end of the fairway so balls wouldn't be so likely run into the ravine.

Even better, IMHO, would have been to set the two shortest tees in such a way that you could see the line to play around the right end of the junk in the ravine.  IIRC, the hole is downwind, but with the tee where it is, the trees on the right make it almost impossible to get shot through to the second fairway.  If they were 40 or 50 yards to the left you might give players like me (and my wife) a true risk reward option where the risk was worth taking. As it stands, it's just a dumb play.

Now, if you ask my wife, she'd tell you #10 is unreasonable. She's a decent player, 14 handicap, hits it about 170 off the tee, and is very straight.  But like most women, she doesn't get much carry off the fairway. So, when the prevailing SE wind is blowing, I've seen her lay up TWICE on that hole.

She can't get over the creek in two, so she lays up.  Then she plays her third across the creek. But that still leaves a big carry over a creek and waist-high rough, so she just about has to lay up again. Even that leaves her a tough fifth shot to get on the green. Essentially, it becomes a hard par 7 for her. I can't imagine what a 30 handicap woman would face.



You're a really good guy for hanging out here and particpating and you gave us a good explanation of #4, so tell me about the 10th at Sand Creek.



I played it in stiff SE wind, and getting ANY shot into that first fairway was a bitch. Any mishit, and you're looking at having to lay up 300 yards from the green. And tha'ts playing from the 6,100-yard tees.  Everyone in my group made double and we were happy to have been able to pull that off.

Without the wind, it's just a hard hole.  But the wind blows out of the SE almost every day during golf season here.

By the way, don't pay too much attention to my griping, it's just that I rarely get to ask questions of an archie whose courses I've played.  BTW -- I can't wait to play Three Fires...  Is #10 a long par five into the wind?

Ken

[Sean_A]

Ken,

Yes, there has been a lot of discussion about 4 at Colbert Hills. Is it fair to ask for a layup from the longest players to create a 200 yard second shot on a par 4?  We did build a kick in bank from the right to allow an alternate shot, and it appears we didn't get the forward tees exactly right.  Moreover, perhaps we just should have pushed more dirt in the valley beyond the landing area, but then, we wouldn't be following the natural contours, right?

As to whether its fair if you have to play out of a bunker sideways, I agree with you its fair (providing it doesn't happen too often) but the point is whether its desireable?  Its fun to advance the ball to the hole.  Its not fun to have to advance it backwards more than once a decade to have a story to tell.  Some here would advance such hazards as some kind of examination of golf we all ought to be forced to sit through, like a rectal exam, but if its recreation for most of us, why would we think that is fun, which should be the object of the game and most courses?

I know you are not arguing that tough courses ought to be the norm, but rather if a bad break happens, golfers should shut the pie hole, accept it and move on.  I agree. 

I once posted a thread titled "What if I hit it here?" which is the extent that many players get into architecture.  Sometimes "here" doesn't allow you to get close to the hole, and some of those times, the gca meant it to be that way.  You can't have strategy without it being more or less favorable to hit the ball one place over the other........

Jeff

It is true that recoverng away from the hole is generally not fun, but bunkers this penal are worth the risk of VERY occassionally pissing off a golfer.  The solution is not to build easy to recover from bunkers, but fewer bunkers and oneds which concentrate more on the greens rather than fairways.  The opportunity for the dreaded no-option recovery is markedly reduced and the bunkering still means something other than a bit of archie flash and a map.   

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

I think we are saying the same thing basically. I don't know about a no option recovery, a la playing backwards into a pond, but a no option forward penalty makes sense maybe one per nine holes. And it doesn't have to be greens only - I tend to make my deepest fw bunkers on par 5 holes where getting out with a short iron still allows you to reach the green in regulation 3 if you hit a hazard while gambling.

Ken,

Not a lot of time right now for in depth discussions, but I will be back at Sand Creek to enlarge the putting green this summer, and have heard other complaints about the length of the 10th and will see if I can get them to spring for a new forward tee to shorten the carry to the fw.  (I had not heard that condition before)  BTW, the new putting green will take out the 600+ yard tee shortening the hole for everyone.

[Ken Moum]

...will see if I can get them to spring for a new forward tee to shorten the carry to the fw.  (I had not heard that condition before)  BTW, the new putting green will take out the 600+ yard tee shortening the hole for everyone.

My comment on getting one in the first fairway wasn't about the carry, is was about the difficulty of hitting into to 25 mph wind with water left and OB right. Combine that with a hole cloes to 600 yards long, and it can ruin your back nine pretty quickly.

Moving all the tees up a notch might be all that's needed. If the whites were 525, and the front tees were under ~475, it would still be a challenge. I know folks hate seeing their courses shortened, but I play a lot of golf with average men and women, and 6,000 is about all most of the guys I play with can really handle, and darned few women should be playing anything over 4900.

K

[Garland Bayley]

...
To me an unfair golf course would be one that consistently punishes good shots.

Guess they weren't such good shots after all.

[Mac Plumart]

 

[Jobst von Steinsdorff]

While I tend to agree that hardly anything in GCA is unfair, I think one point has been missing in the discussion so far:

The point about everyone playing the same course is right, however I would consider a hole unfair, if the "relative challenge" for a skilled golfer is much less than the one for a bogey or worse golfer. I have two holes in mind here in particular, which both feature a drive on a quite steep upslope. While the scratch golfer will have no trouble to place his drive up on the hill and have a level lie and a clear line of sight for his second, the less skilles golfer's drive (also from teh forward tees) is destined to end up on the slope, firstly taking much length out of it as it won't roll far uphill, secondly leaving him with a severe uphill lie and thirdly with a blind shot.

While good golfers have little trouble playing these holes, it can be very much trouble for the weak ones. It doesn't make a difference, when golfers of equal strength compete, however 95% of golfers have to compete against each other on a handicap adjusted basis, while such holes are much more difficult for the high handicapper than any Slope Rating and handicap strokes can level out.

I'd consider this kind of hole unfair. While this type of fairness is certainly not a criterion to judge the world's best courses, it is very relevant for places where retail golfers will go frequently.

[Roger Wolfe]

The point about everyone playing the same course is right, however I would consider a hole unfair, if the "relative challenge" for a skilled golfer is much less than the one for a bogey or worse golfer. I have two holes in mind here in particular, which both feature a drive on a quite steep upslope. While the scratch golfer will have no trouble to place his drive up on the hill and have a level lie and a clear line of sight for his second, the less skilles golfer's drive (also from teh forward tees) is destined to end up on the slope, firstly taking much length out of it as it won't roll far uphill, secondly leaving him with a severe uphill lie and thirdly with a blind shot.

Hi Jobst,

You have just described #4, #6, #17 and #13 at Carolina.  If Golfer A can carry the ball 20 yards further than Golfer B, he is going to end up 40-50 yards ahead and on a flat lie due to his ability to just carry the crest of the fairway hills.  After a rough year of playing poorly, I finally returned to my old length.  The extra 30 yards has meant I get to hit 7 or 8 iron to the greens instead of a hybrid!!  Great observation!

[Matthew Petersen]

I think it's interesting that the original post mentioned the set up of #10 at BPB in the 2002 US Open. That is one of the very few instances I can think of in a tournament where an "unfair" condition existed, because truly only a limited amount of the field was able to even reach the fairway with their best drive. In general, my attitude about tournament golf is as many here have said--it can't be unfair because you're all playing it. But it's one thing for someone who can hit it 200 in the air to just have more options--cutting doglegs, etc. It's another thing when you don't give a certain portion of the field even a chance at reaching the fairway, as I understand was the case on that hole that year.

While I tend to agree that hardly anything in GCA is unfair, I think one point has been missing in the discussion so far:

The point about everyone playing the same course is right, however I would consider a hole unfair, if the "relative challenge" for a skilled golfer is much less than the one for a bogey or worse golfer. I have two holes in mind here in particular, which both feature a drive on a quite steep upslope. While the scratch golfer will have no trouble to place his drive up on the hill and have a level lie and a clear line of sight for his second, the less skilles golfer's drive (also from teh forward tees) is destined to end up on the slope, firstly taking much length out of it as it won't roll far uphill, secondly leaving him with a severe uphill lie and thirdly with a blind shot.

While good golfers have little trouble playing these holes, it can be very much trouble for the weak ones. It doesn't make a difference, when golfers of equal strength compete, however 95% of golfers have to compete against each other on a handicap adjusted basis, while such holes are much more difficult for the high handicapper than any Slope Rating and handicap strokes can level out.

I'd consider this kind of hole unfair. While this type of fairness is certainly not a criterion to judge the world's best courses, it is very relevant for places where retail golfers will go frequently.

Also a good point. I played the Saguaro course at WeKoPa a few weeks ago and thought this exact issue was true on that course's 18th hole. From the back tees, the hole plays 500+ yards, and the drive must carry 250 yards to reach the top of a steep hill. That's not a big issue as most anyone playing from those tees has a good chance at making that shot. But as you move forward up the tees, the teeing area gets lower (meaning the tee shot is more of an uphill shot rather than just a forced carry), and the distance is not significantly reduced. I played that day with a good player who could hit the ball well and was playing an appropriate tee, but even a well struck tee shot from him didn't reach the top of the hill. Thus he was left with a 270yd second shot from a steep upslope and was completely blind. It seemed to me that such would be the case for many players on that hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Combine that with a hole cloes to 600 yards long, and it can ruin your back nine pretty quickly.


Now that doesn't seem fair at all.......

That is one of those holes of modern gca that could exist in another thread....clubhouse location set by need to use existing culvert as way to get under the railroad.  Two ponds required there for detention areas because of the housing developers agreement....my argument to "screw downstream homeowners, I want an easier golf hole" went unheeded.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jobst, Roger - I understand what you mean and have experienced what you're talking about and have more than a little sympathy with your pov.  But on the other hand, what seems truly unfair to me is to demand of an architect that the relative difficulty of his course (for the good compared to the average golfer - in other words, the slope rating) now be applied on an individual, hole by hole basis, i.e. that a course with a low slope rating now be consistently that, consistently 'fair' in a relative sense to the scratch and bogie golfer alike, and that the course not contain three or two or even one hole where the better golfer has not only an advantage but an exponentially larger advantage.  That seems a condition/requirement tailor-made for the law of unintended consequences to kick in (much like the graduated rough the USGA has introduced at its major championships - it seemed, even to me, like a good idea at the time....and yet there's a slippery slope there).  I can only imagine the second-rate routing choices architects will feel compelled to make if golfers started asking for 'relative fairness' on a hole-by-hole basis. Anyway, as I say, I have much sympathy for your pov - but I have been playing some 'stupid' courses lately (and I don't say that lightly - I usually try to find something good about every courses)....and if you play a few stupid courses in a row I think you'll start taking unfair over stupid any day of the week.

Peter

[Carl Johnson]

While I tend to agree that hardly anything in GCA is unfair, I think one point has been missing in the discussion so far:

The point about everyone playing the same course is right, however I would consider a hole unfair, if the "relative challenge" for a skilled golfer is much less than the one for a bogey or worse golfer. I have two holes in mind here in particular, which both feature a drive on a quite steep upslope. While the scratch golfer will have no trouble to place his drive up on the hill and have a level lie and a clear line of sight for his second, the less skilles golfer's drive (also from teh forward tees) is destined to end up on the slope, firstly taking much length out of it as it won't roll far uphill, secondly leaving him with a severe uphill lie and thirdly with a blind shot.

While good golfers have little trouble playing these holes, it can be very much trouble for the weak ones. It doesn't make a difference, when golfers of equal strength compete, however 95% of golfers have to compete against each other on a handicap adjusted basis, while such holes are much more difficult for the high handicapper than any Slope Rating and handicap strokes can level out.

I'd consider this kind of hole unfair. While this type of fairness is certainly not a criterion to judge the world's best courses, it is very relevant for places where retail golfers will go frequently.

I agree, in that I think of "fairness" in terms of golfer vs. golfer, not golfer vs. golf course.  Thus, I would consider no golf course "unfair."  I might consider a course that I cannot play happily as "unreasonable for me," and I'd choose not to play it, but it could be fine for others.  Thank goodness there are plenty of golf course options around.  Having said that, I'd disagree with your example.  In that situation, myself being the weaker golfer, I'd simply say it's no fun for me to play you, the strong golfer, on that hole.  I simply wouldn't do it.  Still, the hole is fair.  It plays the same for everyone.  It's just that I'm not up to it, and that's perfectly o.k. with me.  I'll play somewhere else.

[Ken Moum]

Combine that with a hole cloes to 600 yards long, and it can ruin your back nine pretty quickly.


Now that doesn't seem fair at all.......

That is one of those holes of modern gca that could exist in another thread....clubhouse location set by need to use existing culvert as way to get under the railroad.  Two ponds required there for detention areas because of the housing developers agreement....my argument to "screw downstream homeowners, I want an easier golf hole" went unheeded.

JB, This is EXACTLY why I  like GCA.com and participation by architects like you.

Ever since I played it, I've bitched about that hole.  Now I know that the architect thought it was too hard as well.

Perhaps the putting green expansion will be a catalyst for making a change for the good.

Ken

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()