"Unfair" hole locations

[Howard Riefs]

Interesting paper about "avoiding hole location disasters" ala US Open disasters at Shinnecock (7th) and Olympic Club (18th)

http://www.aimpointgolf.com/Documents/TheFineLine.pdf

[Mark_Fine]

Howard,
Interesting but a bit too precise/defined for me.  Also, I hate the word fair in golf and it is used over and over.

John,
I love firm and fast conditions and am the strongest advocate of it on all the courses I visit/work on.  I am NOT, however, an advocate of greens running 13 on the stimp.  Also, greens can still be firm without running the speed of a hardwood floor!  Read my Royal Birkdale story about course set ups.  Unfortunately, that is no longer realistic but that is what I would like to see.

Jim,
If everyone had to play to the middle of the green on #13 at Augusta it would be a different story but they don’t as it is possible (though not very smart) to try to get to that back tier.  At 13 at Doral, even teeing it up, there was no chance.  Same would go for a shot from the same yardage to back left hole location on #11 at Augusta.  Not smart at all to shoot at it, but it is possible. 

Augusta is Augusta as far as over the top maintenance goes but they have done for the most part a good job of creating the right balance of temptation/risk/reward.  There are things, however, that they have done that I didn’t like at all.   At one point they raised the level of the stream on #13 so that any ball that came up short was lost.  It was not a good move and took away much of the temptation and interest in the golf hole.  A player for example with a marginal lie in the pine straw 220 yards from the green immediately reached for their wedge knowing a missed shot was a penalty.  Fortunately, they lowered the water back down in Rae’s Creek where sometimes if you missed short, you might be on a sand bar or in a place where some kind of great recovery shot was possible.  This restored the temptation to go for it rather than pitch out and hit a wedge on for your third.  Another area where they made a mistake (and it is still there) on #15 planting all those trees on the right side of the fairway.  Who wants to see the pros chipping out from under a pine tree 235 yards from the green.  Sure they shouldn’t be rewarded with an easy open shot to the green, but what a great place to put an elongated Mackenzie bunker to catch a tee shot wide right.  Now the golfer has somewhere around 220-240 yards to the green out of a bunker and most of their egos won’t allow them to layup.  Now that is a much more exciting shot than a chip out and restores even more risk/reward/excitement to the golf hole. 

[Sandy Smith]

I believe if 13 was playing into a slight breeze on Sunday that it would have been a different story.
Down wind to a tight flag is a time when even a tour player should be happy with a 20 footer.

[JESII]

Jeff and Mark,

If you hit a good shot in my scenario that doesn't quite stay in the green, do you agree that Dorals recovery is significantly easier? How about the putt from the middle of both greens after a "safe" approach? Again, significantly easier at Doral it seems.

[Michael Felton]

I'm curious what people would think of something like this:

A tee shot on a par 5, where the fairway starts 300 yards from the tee and is over water all the way. There is no bail out, only a wooden bridge to go across with gaps in it wider than a golf ball. No DZ either. Would you consider that fair? Some players happen to have a skill set that enables them to hit it over 300 yards on the fly. Others don't. Is everyone treated the same there? I would call that unfair. I think it's reasonable for the person who can hit it 300 yards in the air to have an advantage, but not to the extent that the person who can only carry it 280 can't complete his round.

Likewise, I think it's possible for a pin to be unfair on a par three. Two players. One has to hit a 3 wood and can only hit a flattish shot. His ball carries the front bunker by a yard and shoots on through into a bunker over the back. The other hits a high towering 6 iron that also clears the bunker by a yard. Because the green here is narrow and firm, his ball also winds up in the bunker over the back. He has hit a far superior shot, but gets the same result. To my mind, that's not fair. As someone else stated, the goal of the architect is for the players to be differentiated. If you have a pin position that's so hard that no one can be differentiated by it, then that's not fair. It's not fair on the player who is unable to demonstrate his superior skill because of the conditions.

[Kyle Harris]

Michael,

You're arguing from the absurd.

Similar constructs could be made involving walls of arbitrary height, etc.

The question one must ask if that of reason. It is not reasonable to expect a player to make a 300 yard carry, considering a whole multitude of factors outside of raw physical skill contribute to that ability (wind, temperature, etc.). One hasn't proven anything with your example that involves the skill of playing golf the sport.

It is reasonable to pose a difficult question with a hole location that requires the judicious, and perhaps defensive, expenditure of shots.

The goal of the architect is to build a golf course which pleases the client. The goal of a golf tournament is for players to be differentiated.

Furthermore, no hole location or shot exists in a vacuum. In a four round tournament, there are at least 71 other opportunities to differentiate players.

[JESII]

Even more simply than that...the idea is to make a score. In this instance, maybe that score is 3 after all good shots.

[Don Mahaffey]

the goal of the architect is for the players to be differentiated.

wow....apocalypse is here if this is the goal of architects.

How hard is it to differentiate, especially if power is the only deciding factor? What crap.

The goal of an architect, IMO, is to allow all levels of player to complete the hole, and to compete against each other. You take one path with your 6 iron, I take another with my 3-wood.  I realize if I find a way to tie you or beat you you'll complain that the "goal of the architect" wasn't met since you didn't win every hole with your superior power.

Have we become so PC that we can't even stomach the occasional sucker pin? Do we really have to design greens with hole locations that can be attacked from any tee in any weather? Really?

[Mark_Fine]

Actually I think Doral is perfect the way it is and Nothing should be changed!  I am sure Gil feels the same 

[Michael Felton]

Kyle,

My example was intended to be absurd. It was a response to people who were saying that nothing can be unfair so long as everyone plays the same hole. The nature of the game is such that most people aren't affected the same way by something unreasonable. IMO at any rate.

Don,

Superior power is a long way from the only part of the game. The superior power of the player who hits the 6 iron may be the only thing that enables him to compete with the more accurate, but shorter player. The hole location in question affects those two players differently. The 3 wood hitter is struggling to hold the green regardless of how "silly" the pin is cut. The 6 iron hitter is only struggling if the pin is cut in a "silly" spot. My only point was that it is possible for a pin position to be "unfair", even though everyone plays it in the same place. If the guy who hits the 3 wood wins, it's because he scored better that day.

And I'm fine with sucker pins. I'd just sooner that they give some chance of hitting it close. A sucker pin with death all around it is completely fine. A player should have the choice of taking it on and maybe making 2, but maybe making 5 (or more), or not taking it on and hopefully getting a safe 3. If that pin is cut in such a position that the choice is taking it on and making at best a 3 and maybe a 5, or not taking it on and hopefully getting a safe 3, don't you think it loses something for that?

[Matthew Petersen]

Kyle,

My example was intended to be absurd. It was a response to people who were saying that nothing can be unfair so long as everyone plays the same hole. The nature of the game is such that most people aren't affected the same way by something unreasonable. IMO at any rate.

Don,

Superior power is a long way from the only part of the game. The superior power of the player who hits the 6 iron may be the only thing that enables him to compete with the more accurate, but shorter player. The hole location in question affects those two players differently. The 3 wood hitter is struggling to hold the green regardless of how "silly" the pin is cut. The 6 iron hitter is only struggling if the pin is cut in a "silly" spot. My only point was that it is possible for a pin position to be "unfair", even though everyone plays it in the same place. If the guy who hits the 3 wood wins, it's because he scored better that day.

And I'm fine with sucker pins. I'd just sooner that they give some chance of hitting it close. A sucker pin with death all around it is completely fine. A player should have the choice of taking it on and maybe making 2, but maybe making 5 (or more), or not taking it on and hopefully getting a safe 3. If that pin is cut in such a position that the choice is taking it on and making at best a 3 and maybe a 5, or not taking it on and hopefully getting a safe 3, don't you think it loses something for that?

I don't really care if you're hitting a 3 wood or a 6 iron, you're still hitting a 240-yard shot to a shallow, firm target. Even if you could hit a 9-iron that far, it's still not likely to stop. Sometimes golf involves angles and shots that are sort of possible in theory but essentially impractical. Consider a cape hole. Sometimes a player stands on the tee and knows he can carry the edge of the lake at 260 but knows he can;t take that line directly because any ball driven 260+ yards in the air won't stop before it reaches trouble on the far side of the fairway. That's not unfair--it just means some different kind of shot is called for.

But, honestly, I don't really have an opinion as to fair or unfair. I do think a "better" pin position would be one where it's at least possible that a really good shot can stop, even if it's only 1 in 50 of the best in the world who can pull it off and the punishment for failure makes it a "sucker pin." I'm not sure it was possible from 238 with the breeze behind and those firm greens for a shot clearing the front bunker to stop on the green. That's not ideal, for me, but it's not bad.

And this was one hole. There were 17 other hole locations on Sunday we're not having this discussion about, so it's not ridiculous to me that once in a round a prudent player might decide that hitting the middle of the green and making 3 at worst is the best way to possibly pick up a stroke on the field (the hole played over par for the week, after all).

[Ken Moum]

Ken,

How about perfect in a practical sense?  As in, the target is too small for any of the best players to hit?  See my post above

If the object is to get the ball in the hole, I think most agree (as in your 10 foot example) that the golf course architecture ought to allow that, not make it impossible.

If the object is (and it is) to get the ball in the hole in par or your best score that day, I think most agree that the golf course architecture ought to allow that, not make it impossible to make par. (as in your 15 yard wide fw with double water example) Difficult in some cases, easier in others, and about average chance on most holes is probably a good goal, no? (with some variations from course to course and allowing for variations in players games)

I have always found golfers of all types don't mind if you make it their option to hit away from the hole, but when you make it a requirement, they tend to think its bad design.  I think its because its counter to the basic objectives of why they play the game, and its hard to think anyone should purposely design a hole that forces you to make bogey (such as a dog leg par 3) with the normal two putts.

I have also found everyone loves other folks to suffer, but no one likes to suffer themselves......

Granted, everything else is in between.

All of that is why I like the word reasonable instead of fair.

The reason I said what I did about "perfect" shots vs perfect plans is that the essence of the complaint about the hole at Doral is the pro's obsession with par.

They somehow forget that they aren't playing against par. They're playing against 150-odd other players.  If the hole was 60 yards longer and called a par four would this even be an issue?

Of course not...

So it's not a matter of fairness or even reasonableness, it is entirely about expectations. If they'd simply realize that by making three they're gaining on the field they'd be much happier.

K

[Brent Hutto]

I've still not seen an answer to what I think is the most fundamental question here.

Is it necessary for every hole on every day to be designed and set up so that it's possible to hit a 200+ yard approach shot that ends up within 10 feet of the hole?

To my mind it should be entirely "fair" or "reasonable" or "not stupid" to have a certain hole location on a certain green where the best possible outcome from a 200-yard is to be 10 or 15 yards from the hole. And using that hole location on one day of a tournament would not be a problem in my opinion.

I suspect that for some people here a section of green is "unpinnable" if the best players in the world can't hit the ball close from 200, 240 or any other arbitrarily long distance.

[BCrosby]

Brent notes:

"I've still not seen an answer to what I think is the most fundamental question here.

Is it necessary for every hole on every day to be designed and set up so that it's possible to hit a 200+ yard approach shot that ends up within 10 feet of the hole?"

I would broaden Brent's point.

There is no requirement that all pins should be approachable from all distances. There is no rule that all greens should be two puttable from any place on the green. There is no rule that ups and downs should be possible from anywhere off the green. There is no rule that a straight drive of any length should find the fw. And so forth. In short, there is no rule that punishments should always fit the crime.

Certainly courses can be too hard to be enjoyable. They can be too easy to be interesting. But within those incredibly wide parameters, good architects make a point of sometimes messing with rational expectations. That's a good thing.

And 'fairness' has nothing to do with it. No, let me put that more strongly. Too much focus on meeting golfer's expectations about playing outcomes can poison golf architecture.

Bob    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brent,

I think you won't because there is no definitive answer, at least among this group.  I think if this were a discussion board on pgatour.com, private for players, the answer would be "no."

That said, I have always noticed how they complain about their PGA Tour events, and less about the PGA, and almost none at all for similar situations in the Masters or US Open, where they are not in control of the tournaments.  They are more afraid of losing their invites than they are of the pin position.

It really isn't black and white anyway.  My take is that a pin should have "some" chance to aim right at.  It might be 90-10, 80-20, 66-33 or 50-50 against the odds, and may vary with conditions, but still a chance, rather than a green that simply won't accept an aggressive shot, which appears to be the case at 13 Doral.  I just believe that the decision to be aggressive should lie with the player, and not the golf course architect.  

In terms of architectural concept, a chance for birdie, par or bogey is always stronger than a chance for recovery par or standard bogey.  Why?  Because we all hope for birdie and why should I dash anyone's chances before they even start the hole? 

In terms of strategic choice, when one option is 0%, it is really no option at all, so strategy (and fun) is reduced.

Short version, I wouldn't intentionally design a green with that kind of ridge to make the back half so inaccessible.  Between that ridge, the target size, etc., not to mention actual results from great players, I believe that green reduces a chance to play at that pin too close to 0% to be a good concept.  I am not sure if that was intentional or unintentional. 

However, the real answer as to "what to do about it?" is also gray.  With Trump's money, I suspect it will change at some point.  At most clubs or courses, it would probably stay until there were some other reasons to rebuild, because for most of us, a conservative par in a $5 match really that big a deal, and it takes a lot of lost bets to make up the cost of reshaping part of that green.......

As to Bob's point that there are no requirements on approachable pins or even for a putting surface that allows two putting, I would agree, but think its implied.  If the point is to hole out, then a basic function of architecture is to allow that.  If the point is to strive for par - which it is, despite some misgivings here - a basic function of architecture is to allow that, too.  I do understand that par is achievable on that hole with a shot to the middle of the green, so at worst, its a tweener.

[Kyle Harris]

Broadening Brent's point also leads us to the realization that no one shot exists in a vacuum.

Tracing shots back, even to the tee on a par 3, will almost always yield a manner in which a hole could or even was played more efficiently.

The idea that only one shot, in one context, should be the ultimate determining factor of equity and reason on the golf course is exactly that sort of thinking that leads to "defending par."

[David Davis]

Didn't read all the posts but I don't believe there is such thing as unfair hole locations for the most part. There are sucker pin placements for sure and if you go for it and end up scoring high numbers well consider yourself a sucker. Indeed it's a strange comment from Miller but then again sometimes he just says the first thing to pop into his head.

If there are such thing as unfair hole locations I would say they would mainly exist when a hole is punched by an amateur green keeper who places it for example in the middle of a slope where a ball will not stand still at all. Or perhaps when a hole is punched in a place on a very windy day where it is impossible to stop balls.

I've had both on links courses. Once on the second hole at Gullane 1. With a very high wind coming through the ridge. I chipped my third shot from in front of the green about 1 ft past the hole for what would of been an easy tap in and the wind was blowing so hard the ball went up, stopped then came all the way back. However, I'm not sure where this hole could of been placed to keep the ball from blowing off the green. Sometimes the wind is just too hard of course.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Brent -

Correct. Which is why the spritzing of the 12th (?) green at Shinnie at the US Open several years ago was unfair. The same green was not played by the entire field.

7th Green - the Redan

[Jeff_Brauer]

Got a call from TePaul on this thread.....just to point out that both the USGA and PGA Tour have course setup guidelines.  He even mentioned that the USGA prep book includes the word "fair." Not that this would change anyone's opinion here......

Also discussed how good these guys are in general at course set up, and the post above about 7 Shinny sort of proves the point.  Maybe this one does, too, in a smaller way.

As I said earlier, there are generally fewer complaints at the majors, because they are glad to be there.  I think pros feel the PGA Tour is theirs, and they should have a say in how the course is set up.  In all, while they are trying to generate wins, the tour itself is trying to generate ticket sales and TV ratings.  I guess people pay to watch car wrecks and hockey fights, but they seem to feel birdies is what draws the viewers.

Maybe fair is a malleable term, in different contexts.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Got a call from TePaul on this thread.....  He even mentioned that the USGA prep book includes the word "fair." Not that this would change anyone's opinion here......

Does the prep book give any further guidance and examples of what it deems "fair" vs "unfair?"

As the word itself is subjective, context would be important to know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I haven't read them, just passing on TePaul's comments.  I agree that there could hardly be a point by point definition and final decisions are left to field guys who run their tourneys on all levels, its not just the US Open.

Doesn't surprise me overall. As a goal of any sports competition, we want it to be "fair and square" and other similar phrases.  Probably only a small bunch dedicated to changing the architectural world would really find a lot wrong with the concept of trying to make competitions fair for competitors.

[Chris Roselle]

The above photo is from an article by Jerry Lemons which I was given when I first started working for the Golf Association of Philadelphia. I often refer back to it when I am picking out hole locations.  I also make sure to bring along my trusty level which I have marked with no one way reading greater than 2.5% (greens speeds between 10 and 11) and no two way reading greater than 5.0.