Wasn't there the time-tested principle of shots being proportionally rewarded or

[Michael Whitaker]

I am quite sure that a players view on proportionality will be directly proportional to a players ball striking ability.   

I think this is greatly true in the USA where golf is played as mostly a target game... not so sure with players who primarily play links golf.

If you are used to more randomness in the courses you play I don't think proportionality is expected, or maybe even wanted. Where golf is played primarily to targets I can see proportionality being expected by a great percentage of golfers. It all centers around "fairness," doesn't it? I would think golfers who think a course should play "fair" would be proponents of proportionality and vice versa.

[Lou_Duran]

Michael Whitaker,

As long as the objective is to get the ball in the hole, golf by its very essence is a target game.  "The Links", because of the wind, proximity to the sea, poor soils, and weather, just require wider targets en route to the hole.  It is much about proportionality and adaptation.  In the heartlands, we usually have less wind, richer soils (better mediums for trees and grasses), and tighter corridors.  The shots called for are different in some cases (the means), but the desired result is still the same- get the ball in the hole in the fewest possible strokes relative to the competition.  Not to minimize the natural beauty of the sea, I wonder whether the landlocked are so enthralled with links golf because it is a break from the ordinary (familiarity breeds contempt).

Whether we want to admit it or not- more than a few here seem to view themselves as free-thinkers, non-conventional- we all seek some rhyme or reason.  We all have a sense of proportion in golf and in life.  It is a good part of the basis for how we define "fair".  It many not be that all short holes should have small greens, instead it may be something like this from the "perfect bunkers" thread:

Tacking back to just how costly a shot from sand should be, I seem to recall a very sensible rule of thumb in Anatomy of a Golf Course where TD proposed that the more penal the hole the less penal the bunker should be. Always struck me as the sort of common sense you might associate with Harry Colt.

Or, as the originator of this thread suggests through his signature, that rewards (compensation) should be proportional to (his perception of) the societal contributions of the work.  

[Sean_A]

Lou

I really dislike the word "fair" for three reasons.  First, people confuse it with "equal".  Second, there is no objective meaning for what is "fair".  "Fair" is just a meaningless layer of a concept which in truth deflects people from discussing/considering design elements.  In other words, saying something isn't fair is a copout.  Its better to be honest and say you don't like something rather than hiding behind the false security of fairness.  Finally, have you ever seen a feature in golf design you believed to be unfair?  Meaning, did the feature only exist for some golfers and not others?   Its all fair regardless of our feelings or beliefs. 

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

I don't care at all when someone criticizes one of my courses as "unfair," but it bothers me when someone describes one of my courses as "fair", because for me that is not the point at all.

If everything was proportional, matches would be over by the tenth tee.  Nobody would ever want to play golf with somebody who was better than they are, because the result would be a foregone conclusion.  For me, the point of golf architecture is to build courses that are fun for everyone, and to make the better player work to prove he is better, by stacking the deck against him a little bit.  I don't give a damn if you shoot three strokes higher than yesterday even though you struck the ball a little bit better ... life is not that fair, and on the links, the elements can make at least that much difference from one day to the next.

That doesn't mean I think the results should be RANDOM, as Lou correctly points out.  I've been misquoted by Ron Whitten and others who said I believe that bunkers should be located randomly, when what I said was that they should LOOK random and natural, and come at different distances off the tee, instead of penalizing certain players over and over.  My courses reward skill, but often the reward is one or two shots down the line, as in a good chess move, and some good ball-strikers like their rewards to be more immediate and obvious.

By the same token, Lou correctly observes that golf is ultimately about getting the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible, considering all the conditions of the weather and the golf course INCLUDING its design.  Golf is NOT about whether someone can hit a drive farther or a 2-iron straighter, unless it helps them to get the ball in the hole sooner ... so why do the good ball-strikers complain it's "unfair" that those feats did not help them?  Jim Lipe is correct, that the better ball-strikers really feel that golf should be more about ball-striking and less about putting or short game ... but the fact that he is a better ball-striker than me does not mean he's right.    In a popularity contest, there are a lot of people on my side of that argument.

Overcoming the paradox of proportionality is not all about bad bounces, either.  I'm always amazed when good players complain about the possibility of good bounces.  The best players act like they don't even WANT a lucky bounce, instead of being humbly grateful for the breaks they've gotten.  And to think they accuse ME of arrogance!  

[Jason Topp]

I prefer the well worn principle that hazards should exist to tempt agressive play rather than punish poor play.  The player who attempts the most agressive shot but does not pull it off is the one that suffers the greatest punishment.  

Such designs make for the most interesting golf and run almost directly contrary to the concept of proportionality.  The almost perfect shot is the shot that should be punished the most.  The Road Hole green is a perfect example of this.  If one lays up short right of the green the player will make 4 many times but should not make worse than a 5.  If one is agressive and fails, many numbers come into play.  If one is agressive and succeeds a 3 becomes a possibility.

I also think the concept runs directly contrary to randomness that Lou discusses.  One cannot be tempted if one cannot see a benefit for taking a particular line or using a particular club.  

[Garland Bayley]

Or, as the originator of this thread suggests through his signature, that rewards (compensation) should be proportional to (his perception of) the societal contributions of the work.  

I guess someone advocating proportional results for golf shots might misinterpret it that way by over applying the proportional concept.
Others think Warren means he has been mightily lucky, and he intends to give back the proceeds of his luck. After all, it is his philanthropic pledge.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I have seen that "eliminate the lucky bounce" comment, particularly with Redans or any kick plate.  One golfer even told me using those wasn't real golf!  "You aim at the pin, dammit!" or something like that.  I view those as options to the target, and am with Lou.  Its how many you take to get there, not how, and letting it happen a few different ways is always nice.

I believe the gca does have an obligation to provide some sort of proportionality and fairness.  To start, if a hole has a 300 yard forced carry, or a green the size of a desk, then no one can play it, and few would argue that is our minimum definition.  Given par is the measure, while there can be exceptions, most holes should be reachable in regulation (no dog leg par 3's!) and with fairway width and green size that allow more than half the players to hit the target, i.e., make golf "doable" within the confines of the rules.

After that, its all subjective.  Are hazards too tough?  Too easy?  The differences are what make golf a great game.

I agree that any course that is too consistent can get boring.  As Mike Hurdzan pointed out in his book, if all greens were sized to that USGA slope chart, every shot would be the exact same difficulty, even with differing lengths.  If there were all easy hazards on penal holes (a concept I am having trouble grasping at the moment) or deeper on short holes, shallower on long ones, there would be no holes that stand out.

I could go on.  Again, I have no problem with architects trying to provide some sense of proportionality and order.   My problem is with golfers who constantly demand more of it.  I came to the conclusion long ago that the rub of the green will NEVER be rubbed out, but others might invest ever greater sums to eradicate it.  It just won't happen.

[JWL]

TD
I didn't say anything was right or wrong.  My statement was just based on the overwhelming opinions of guys that I play with the most, and they are generally excellent ball strikers.   In fact, I generally have to have some good bounces to compete with them, which I am thankful for.      In fact, I tend to agree with your thoughts about proportionality, if I understand it correctly, which is that a well designed course should have a 'proportional' dose of both....where good bounces can trump good shots.    I experienced such on my visit to KingsBarns that would have been shocking if I was in a match for something......this actually happened.    I was alone and paired to play with two other guys I didn't know....so there was no 'game'.    On the short par three on the backside, maybe around 12 or so, I hit a shot that landed 3 feet from the pin with a wedge, the ball stopped for a moment 2 ft away, then trickled down a slope that the cup was cut close to, and ran 45 feet from the hole with a putt up a 3 ft incline back to the cup.    One of the guys playing with me half shanked, and that is being generous, over the dunes out of site.    He reached into his bag to reload because it disappeared.    Before he could tee up again, a ball comes running down the slope and stops 2 feet from the hole, right next to my ball mark.   He taps in for a birdie, and I , of course, 3 putted the difficult putt I had.    He only beat me by two on the hole.     All we could do was laugh......and say that's golf!    The craziest game ever invented, and the most disproportional game ever.....which makes golf and its crazy quirks, the greatest game ever......and often the most maddening.     I am sure we have all experienced both sides of the 'bounces'...thus we always have hope, which brings us back, time after time.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

The short par 3 on the back at Kingsbarns is the 13th. I played it a couple of weeks ago and something similar - though less dramatic - happened to me there. I hit what I thought was a perfect 7i that landed next to the pin, took one bounce and nestled up against the face of a bunker behind the green. Double bogey.

The friend I was playing against chunks a 7i to the front edge of the green and it rolls to two feet. Birdie.

There was zero correspondence between the quality of our respective shots and their outcomes. Zero. I was initially furious. But then on the way to the next tee I began to smile. I'd been had by my own expectations about 'fair' outcomes. Golf might be the only sport where it is important to get beyond such expectations. It's a better game if you can. It's one of the little perversities that makes golf so damn interesting and something more than a test of athletic skill.

Bob    

 

[Michael Whitaker]

Lou Duran,

When I refer to "target" golf I mean players who expect every shot to finish exactly where they hit it.  They do not want the ball to bounce... they do not want the ball run out. My brother-in-law is the best senior golfer I know. He is 65 and recently shot 63 in a serious senior competition! He definitely understands the concept of getting his ball in the hole in the fewest strokes possible. But, he does not enjoy playing courses where he feels he doesn't have complete control of his ball. If he experienced what Jim did at Kingsbarns he would cry "unfair" and call the course a Mickey Mouse affair. As we all know, tournament golf and casual golf are two different things. The problem is most golfers now play "tournament" style golf in their casual games and are so focused on score that they get upset with courses that don't "perfectly" reward what they consider "perfectly" struck shots.

When I refer to randomness on a course a mean the sometimes uncertain nature of how the ball will react when it hits the ground... not that bunkers or obstacles are placed along the hole in a random manner. I have seen many golfers steamed and crying "bullshit" when they hit a drive down the middle of a fairway only to have the ball bounce to one side and leave them in a less than "perfect" position. My brother-in-law would consider that completely "unfair." He prefers courses with smooth ground and predictable slopes, especially around the greens. Throw some unusual contours at him and he scoffs at the "bad" bounces that are inflicted on his shots. When he plays a "links" type course he "knows" his game is better than the course... he considers the course tricked up if it doesn't reward his well struck shots in a predictable manner.

[JWL]

Michael
That was the point I was making on my original post.   The better the ball striker, the more predictability they want.   The lesser ball striker benefits from crazy bounces, whether they are his or his competitors.