[John Kavanaugh]

There is nothing wrong with the most skilled golfer that day or that hole or that shot being rewarded with the best shot.  That's fair.

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,


I was being serious.   But I should have said "In general"  in respect to US style bunkering that you find at countless munis and other forgettable courses nationwide.  Certainly Tom and others make some pretty mean bunkers.


P.S.  I've always figured small pot bunkers were born out of practicality and frugality.  Building large bunkers on windy sites requires a lot more work and money to maintain.  Build em small, have em collect a little bit, and you now have a much cheaper and easier to maintain solution that still provides plenty of deterrent.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
Pot bunkers were not born out of practicality or frugality.  The original pot bunkers were just small depressions in the terrain that had sand in them.  Architects copied that hazard concept as time went on.  Also many small pot bunkers don't need to be any bigger because they play much larger than they appear.  They are what are often called "gathering" bunkers as balls feed into them from quite a bit of distance away.  Some might call that "unfair" 


John,
I know what you are saying and I am sure many agree (too many) but that is not golf.  I go back to the example of two 320 yard drives hit one foot apart.  One goes in a divot (or into a not so good lie) and the other is sitting perfect.  Is that fair or unfair or just unlucky?  Maybe soon we will have a rule where we say those two drives were pretty much the same so both players can move their ball onto a mat and hit from there? 


Unfortunately luck plays a role in this game.  Luck of the draw, luck of the bounce, luck of the weather,..., luck of the roll (e.g. two 40 foot putts, one lips out and the other falls in - who is the better putter in that case)? 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I hear your argument about a course that is poorly or stupidly set up.  I get that but that doesn't mean it is unfair?  I hate soft greens and firm approaches or vice versa but I don't describe that as unfair.  It is just poor maintenance practice.

I feel that's a gross simplification of what I've said. I gave an example of a course that was "unfair" - you couldn't really play "golf" on it - not a Scottish style ground game, not an American style air game… nothing.

Please define fair and unfair for us and then this will all be settled?  Or better yet, explain why the following situations are fair or unfair but most importantly WHY?

I feel as well that I have defined it. The simplest version is that the result of the shot is generally closely related to the quality of the shot.

I'm not interested in going through your examples. Most - like your ball ending up in a divot hole after a great drive - are just luck or not. Luck isn't fair or unfair - it's just luck. It's beside the point, and it generally evens out. Except for using the word "generally" in my definition (that "generally results should be related to the quality of the shots")… I didn't even really include luck in my definition. The "generally" leaves room for a normal level or amount of luck or those edge cases where a shot one foot short rolls off a false front and one a foot longer stays up on the shelf.

Here's a counter-example. Let's suppose you could set up a golf course with five-yard wide fairways and rough so thick that if you miss the "fairway," it's almost impossible make better than bogey, and doubles are common. The winner that week would likely not be the best overall golfer, because the conditions are so extreme and the course so "unfair" in the colloquial sense of the word (if everyone plays the same course, it's perfectly fair in the actual definition sense of the word), but would rather likely be the golfer who got the luckiest to have happened to hit more of the fairways than others.

It's fine, though. I don't want or need your $100. But I think you're irrationally opposed to the use of the word "fair." You seem to want to put me in a box where I think everything - every shot, every bounce, etc. - should be devoid of a bad or good break. I've never said that. I just think there's an acceptable amount of it, but when you get into some weird situations like the two I've now described, it becomes "unfair" because it's not really any style of golf. It becomes far too much about luck.

So that's another way of defining "fair" - a course where luck plays an acceptable role or affects the outcomes an acceptable level. A "normal" or "typical" level. A course where luck is overly influential on the results is "unfair."

In the end, perhaps I simply disagree that the word "fair" is an evil word as you seem to feel it is.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I know what you are saying and I am sure many agree (too many) but that is not golf.  I go back to the example of two 320 yard drives hit one foot apart.  One goes in a divot (or into a not so good lie) and the other is sitting perfect.  Is that fair or unfair or just unlucky?  Maybe soon we will have a rule where we say those two drives were pretty much the same so both players can move their ball onto a mat and hit from there?  Unfortunately luck plays a role in this game.  Luck of the draw, luck of the bounce, luck of the weather,..., luck of the roll (e.g. two 40 foot putts, one lips out and the other falls in - who is the better putter in that case)?

I won't speak for anyone else here, but I'm not suggesting that ALL LUCK has to be removed. That would be impossible, of course, and in calling Carnoustie "tough but fair" nobody was even remotely close to implying that there couldn't be situations where a ball might roll into a divot hole.

It's a nice little straw man argument you've concocted here, though, in pretending that anyone who wants to call a course "fair" is seeking to rule out ALL LUCK despite the evidence to the contrary.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
First of all I enjoy the discussion/debate.  You make good arguments (not just for the sake of arguing) and haven’t taken your ball and gone home (yet)    


The problem with your definition of “fair” is that is it is too arbitrary.  You still can’t measure in your definition what is a “reasonable” amount of luck?  And that is where the problem lies.  Most take it too far (where they are trying to all but eliminate it) and that is how golf courses get messed up and/or over maintained or just plain bland,….  I hear it all the time in green committee meetings - All lies in bunkers need to be “consistent” otherwise they are not fair.  Greens need to be perfect otherwise a putt might bump or wobble.  Rough (despite being called rough) can’t be rough; it needs to be uniform throughout.  All shots need to be penalized in proper proportion to how offline they are.  A ball hit down the middle of the fairway should always be rewarded,…, the list goes on.


The pursuit of fairness causes too many problems and too much expense.  Maybe Tom Doak will chime in and explain how fairness is paramount in his mind to his overall design philosophy   


By the way, on the course you mentioned that you say was set up “unfair”, would that set up matter if it were match play or is there still too much luck involved in it for you?  My suggestion is play more true links golf and your perspective on what is fair and unfair might change 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - words can be defined both by a dictionary and by common usage. Precisely speaking, you're right of course -- golf courses can no more be fair/unfair as could toaster ovens and baseball mitts. But in common usage, many here understand perfectly well what that headline writer meant by 'fair' when describing Carnoustie (and many other courses -- Plainfield is one that comes to mind.)  Now, while I decry the concept of 'fair' when it comes to a course like Firestone (and its copycats), I simply can't ignore the fact that for me not only does the word make sense but it also describes a course (as in Carnoustie's case, and Plainfield's etc) that I'd very much enjoy playing. And, to be honest, I dislike the word 'fun' more than I do 'fair' -- it's wildly overused these days, tells me almost nothing 'concrete' about the course, and I dare say will end up fostering the creation of just as many banal and copy-cat and conventional courses as the word 'fair' ever did. It just hasn't been the fashion of the day long enough yet for all its potential pitfalls to become evident.
Pete

[Joe Hancock]

Mark,


With the vigor in which you are beating this horse, you must have some specific examples of persons or committees interfering with your work on their course due to the issue of fairness. Would you please share?


I personally think there are bigger fish to fry.

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
Eliminating the use of that word when it comes to golf has been a goal of mine for some time.  I know if Geoff saw this thread, he would argue with very little of what I have said. 


It actually is a big fish, a very big fish.  I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) in an earlier post to point out some examples of comments from green committees I have worked with.  Did you see any of those?  They want all their bunkers to be “consistent”.  They don’t like centerline hazards because they don’t think they are fair.  They think that they should be able to always have a shot to the green from a fairway bunker.  At one course we are building a number of “forward” tees.  Some of the longer female golfers that will use those tees think they are not fair because now some of the shorter female players can reach the par fours in two shots and it takes away their advantage.  At one course there was a fairway bunker on the right corner of a slight dogleg left hole.  We expanded the fairway 15 yards to the right of that bunker and around it creating width and a better angle/option into a left hole location on the green.  Some people didn’t understand why we left that bunker where it was in essentially the center of the newly expanded fairway?  They thought it wasn’t fair (even though it was perfectly fine when there was rough all around it to the right before).  This all has to do with “fairness” and what is or is not fair?


You know very well that what is deemed fair vs unfair leads to all kinds of issues (much more than just course set up which is primarily what that Carnoustie article was about).  The problem is that titles like that "tough but fair" will get taken out of context and applied improperly.  Am I overreacting, most likely.  But that article presents a great opportunity for a follow-up for someone like Geoff to talk about fair vs unfair and how that those terms have harmed the game.   



Good chatting with everyone.  I am going to go watch Justin finish off this tournament at Firestone.  I just wish they would have limbed up more of the trees to make shots that are just a little wayward off the fairway more "fair" 

[cary lichtenstein]

Judas Priest, one little off hand comment in a headline which may or may not have been his doing and this board goes to DEFCON 1.  This board is like a Stalinist regime sometimes.  Shack dared to say "tough but fair?"  Trotskyite!  Off to the gulag with him!


"Tough but fair" is down my list of cliches to avoid, although it is on that list.  Now if Shack instead used "lush fairways" then it's out with the torches and pitchforks...

I agree

[A.G._Crockett]

AG,


While I agree with your last post in concept, I think "unfair" things do occur at The Open.


I recall about 15 years ago where the morning groups had benign and perfect playing conditions and most shot good scores...while the afternoon groups encountered fierce conditions of strong wind, rain, and cold...and many of them ended up missing the cut as a result.


Not that i'm justifying the USGA's actions, but wasn't the afternoon weather on Shinnecock that led to those dicey greens not in the forecast?

Kalen,I see a vast difference between the changes in weather conditions that routinely occur in the British from the constant issues with setup that occur in the US Open. 

Can you think of another event, major or otherwise, that gets the constant drumbeat of criticism that the USGA receives for what it does to golf courses?  If you include the insanity surrounding Dustin Johnson's ball moving at Oakmont (and I do!) this is FIVE straight years that Mike Davis has presided over a course setup that was unlike anything else in professional golf.
I think the Saturday winds at Shinnecock were well within the predicted range; the problem was that they had the course setup with zero margin.  Duval pointed out that afternoon that you KNOW a golf course will speed up in the afternoon, so have some elasticity built in.
THAT failing by the USGA, over and over and over, is what people are referring to when they use the word "fair".  Fairness is a man-made construct that doesn't exist in nature, and that's the point.  A "fair" trial doesn't mean the correct outcome; it means a process that is the same for everyone.  The USGA fails at that constantly.
At Augusta, at the British Open, at the PGA, and at regular Tour events, players have to be concerned with what the weather might do; that's golf.  At the US Open, they have to be concerned with what a bunch of hacks might do to a great golf course; that's NOT golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

AG raises a good point, at least obliquely (that is, if I'm reading him correctly).  If, as Bob C would say, characterizing a golf course as 'fair' is a category mistake, akin to describing a watermelon as honest or a baseball as shy, then the USGA's championship set-ups are an exercise in proscribing the impossible (both practically and ontologically): there simply *can't be* a person-driven course set up that 'makes' a golf course 'fair', and indeed it could be argued that the more the human intervention in this regard the greater the impossibility/category mistake. And so to come full circle: because the R&A basically left it alone (save for keeping the greens alive), an always challenging Carnoustie functioned as close to a 'level playing field' as is possible for a golf course; and (though I understand Mark's discomfort with the term) in casual and common usage this is described as being 'tough but fair'. I think that's okay as short-hand superficial descriptions go,  but then, I can't really help the fact that the committee members Mark runs into are lunkheads.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The problem with your definition of “fair” is that is it is too arbitrary.

I think any definition of "fair" is going to be somewhat arbitrary. It'll vary slightly by people. But that's why someone gets to say a course is "tough but fair" - it's not a statement of fact, but opinion.

You still can’t measure in your definition what is a “reasonable” amount of luck?

Please define for me the following words:

- tasty
- hot
- attractive
- distasteful
- bright

These words are all opinion type words. They're adjectives. They're not "measurable" when people use them - they express an opinion.

And that is where the problem lies. Most take it too far (where they are trying to all but eliminate it) and that is how golf courses get messed up and/or over maintained or just plain bland

You keep putting words into my definition - and outcomes - that I never said.

I hear it all the time in green committee meetings - All lies in bunkers need to be “consistent” otherwise they are not fair. Greens need to be perfect otherwise a putt might bump or wobble. Rough (despite being called rough) can’t be rough; it needs to be uniform throughout.

I've not said those things, nor would I include them in the definition of "fair" or "unfair."

By the way, on the course you mentioned that you say was set up “unfair”, would that set up matter if it were match play or is there still too much luck involved in it for you?

It wasn't golf. That was my point with that course. The greens wouldn't hold a shot and the run-up areas wouldn't allow the ball to run up at all. You almost had no way to get the ball onto the green with anywhere near a normal amount of height and/or spin. I suppose you could throw a ball at the green from 30 yards short and get one to go on, but when a green doesn't accept the ground game or the aerial game… that's outside of what I consider golf.

My suggestion is play more true links golf and your perspective on what is fair and unfair might change

I've played my fair share, but thank you?

It actually is a big fish, a very big fish. I tried (apparently unsuccessfully) in an earlier post to point out some examples of comments from green committees I have worked with. Did you see any of those? They want all their bunkers to be “consistent”. They don’t like centerline hazards because they don’t think they are fair. They think that they should be able to always have a shot to the green from a fairway bunker.

Greens committees mis-using a word doesn't mean the word is invalid. It just means that they're not using the word properly. I know this post was in response to someone else, so I'll be brief, but I've not used any of those examples (nor would I) of a course being "unfair." I can appreciate that hearing people say that word frequently (and improperly) can steel your distaste for the word, but… perhaps other people are using the word to mean something else.

This all has to do with “fairness” and what is or is not fair?

I don't think they're using the word "fair" the way I've used it. If even a centerline bunker is there, and you hit into it… that's not bad luck, and it's not "unfair" IMO.

[Joe Zucker]

I have trouble figuring out where I stand on this.  In some respect, I love that golf is random and you must overcome bad luck (or "unfairness") to excel at the game.  However, it seems highly unlikely that the way the game started (or is at any point in time) had the perfect amount of fairness or lack there of.  So most of the rules try to set arbitrary definitions of fair to remove some luck from the game, which suggests most people think the game is too random.  There are certainly some, though not a lot, of people who advocate for more luck by introducing the stymie again or having greens in worse condition so the ball rolls less true. 


I don't have a lot to add other than the fact that I don't know what I think.  Peter and AG's points about fairness being categorically wrong are interesting and something I have never considered before.

[John Kavanaugh]

If luck accounted for even one stroke per round the same people wouldn't consistently win on every level. Golf is a game of skill no matter how much the unskilled would like to change it.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
We will have to agree to disagree on the use of the word unfair.  You called that course set up where you can’t land the ball on the green "unfair", I would maybe call it stupid or silly.  The closest I might have come to that is playing golf in the winter when “some" of the greens or portions of them are frozen.  If your ball happened to land on a frozen part (maybe where the sun had not yet thawed it out), the ball would carom off the back.  I would not call this unfair.  These are just the conditions you've encountered, and both you and your playing partners/opponents need to deal with it.  You have to improvise and play different kinds of shots.  Sometimes "normal" doesn't work so figure something else out.  Again the set up might be silly but it is not unfair.


This is why I suggested playing more links golf.  (John have you ever played links golf  ) I tell people if you haven’t played true links golf then you haven’t really played golf yet.  Links golf can be more a test of character than a test of skill.  When your “perfect” drive ends up in a unplayable circumstance, or you when are 190 yards from the green and your caddie tells you land the ball 120 yards so it doesn’t go off the back of the green, or when a squall rolls in and the wind and rain is whipping sideways to the point where it is tough to stand over a short or a putt,... this is all part of links golf and many would deem this "unfair".  I have heard many Americans playing links golf for the first time say, “this is not golf”.  But it is.  We just play a much more sterile and sometimes bland game back here in the U.S.


I just never like to hear the words fair or unfair used to describe a game that is anything but equitable.  Nothing is fair about golf and the more we try to make it equitable the more expensive the game gets and the more it suffers. 


Years ago, Tom Ferrell and I wrote a series of articles for Golf Tips Magazine.  The intent was to educate golfers about golf architecture in the hope that it could help improve their game.  Here is one of those articles on "fairness".






“Men that hazard all do it in hopes of fair advantages.”—William ShakespeareBLIND SHOTS AND BAD BOUNCES:
it’s just not fairAmong the first lessons we learn as children is the painful reality that life isn’t fair. It’s filled with blind shots, tough choices, anxious moments and random bounces. Sound familiar? The old Scots embraced the fickle nature of golf and its metaphor for the journey of life. Their original links were anything but fair. Laid into the natural hillocks and spaces between the dunes, they sometimes made little sense, yet the sheer unpredictability of the game played under constantly changing wind and weather was at the heart of its attraction. Golf wasn’t meant to be a precise physical endeavor, but rather a metaphorical journey that rewarded higher virtues—strategy, patience, discipline—in addition to skill.Some two centuries later, golf is a different game. Engineering advances allow golf course architects to “create” landscapes and dictate the style of play. Equipment and maintenance practices have allowed golfers to develop a predictable aerial approach to shotmaking rather than one influenced by the natural contours and undulations of the ground. Most modern players expect a course that clearly defines the challenge before them—hit it between the fairway bunkers, loft an iron to the green and try for birdie. Too bad. Golf is and can be so much more than that.Let’s face it—this isn’t bowling, even though some of today’s house-lined fairways might almost qualify. There’s no regulation length, no regulation width and no climate control. A hole that’s unpredictable becomes “unfair” because it doesn’t include instructions. Architects spend enormous amounts of money to create a “fair” golf course, where every lie is perfect, every target is visible and every hole is framed. Hazards exist only to punish a bad shot, rarely to tempt the golfer toward them with an award in return.
Is there even such a thing as “unfair” in golf course design? Assuming that a hole doesn’t demand a forced carry that no reasonable player could muster while playing from appropriate tee boxes, golfers should hesitate to label any hole or challenge unfair. By passing judgment, rather than relishing the quirky or unique elements of a golf course, you introduce tension, negativity and, most important, eliminate the pleasure of the experience and challenge. That test may come in the form of a blind shot, a hazard located directly in the line of play, slopes and contours on fairways and greens, obstructions deemed integral to the course or a do-or-die shot.The greens at Augusta National feature bold contours and tiers. A shot to one side of the green may, in fact, be much worse off than a missed green on the opposite side of the flagstick. Is this fair? Consider the green at the famous par-3 16th. A three-foot ridgeline separates the left and right sides of the putting surface. When the flag is tucked to the left, near the bottom of the slope—the traditional Sunday placement—a shot that finds the right side of the green leaves an almost impossible two-putt. But the ridge engages the shotmaking skills of the field, making the 16th one of the most popular spectator vantage points and one of the most pivotal holes in the tournament. The golfer who challenges the right side can work the ball off the slope toward the hole. If he gets too bold, he can find sand, water or the “impossible” situation that Tiger Woods found last year. Of course, Tiger made the impossible possible, and he’d be the first to admit that his mistake— not the green design—was what put him in such precarious circumstances.



In the quest for fairness, many architects and developers unwittingly deprive golfers of experiences that can turn an ordinary round into a personal legend. The old links at Lahinch, Ireland, was originally laid out by Old Tom Morris. In the 1920s, Alister MacKenzie renovated the course. Like most architects, MacKenzie wasn’t overly fond of blind shots. But at Lahinch he faced a decision over what to do with the short par-3 5th, the infamous “Dell” hole. From the tee, the golfer sees nothing but a towering dune, beyond which lies the green. Each morning, the greenskeeper places a white rock on the side of the dune to identify the line to the flagstick. Forced to factor in yardage, wind and inter- nal uncertainty, the golfer must play a shot of faith toward the green. The walk over the hillock to discover the result of the shot is one of the most anxious—and exquisite—moments in golf. How fortunate that MacKenzie left the hole as it was and didn’t succumb to the temptation to make it more “fair.” It remains today a game of hide-and-seek between course and golfer, and if the ball ends up close, it’s a memory that will never fade.How would you feel if you played a nice, high wedge shot that landed just 10 feet short of the flagstick, right against a wall? Surely that’s not fair! But that’s exactly what could happen on the 13th hole, Pit, at the seminal West Links at North Berwick in Scotland. The West Links, while not as famous as the Old Course at St. Andrews, is one of the most influential golf courses in the world. It gave us the Redan par-3 and many other design elements that architects continue to employ today. But the feature that stands out most is the small rock wall that runs throughout the course. Several times during the round, you must play over the wall, but on no shot does it come as much into play as at the par-4 13th. There, the green lies directly behind the wall, pinched between the stones and dunes. An approach that falls short or comes in too low might require a recovery shot over the wall. In today’s world, where pros routinely receive line-of-sight relief, such an obstruction would cause an uproar.
Finally, there’s the do-or-die shot, the most dreaded in the game. The par-3 17th at the Tournament Players Club at Sawgrass in Ponte Vedra Beach, Fla., measures only 130 yards, little more than a short iron or pitch shot for most, and the green is disproportionately large for such a small shot. No problem. That is, until you look up and see that large green surrounded entirely by water. The psychological intimidation factor—not the difficulty of the shot—transforms the 17th into one of the most treacherous and memorable holes in the world.The pursuit of fairness carries an economic cost as well. The expense of over-the-top maintenance and landscaping practices, earthmoving and stretched-out routings find their way to the golfer in the form of higher green fees.By dismissing your ideas of “fair ness” and embracing the occasional quirk, challenge, bad break and chance for a spectacular recovery, you’ll better connect with the royal and ancient game and more thoroughly enjoy its best and most lasting gifts.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

We will have to agree to disagree on the use of the word unfair.

That's fine, so long as you stop incorrectly listing things that I would call something "unfair." Fairness involves some luck (good and bad).

I'll point out that you skipped defining the adjectives I offered up in a list, and definitely skipped telling me how you "measure" them (I even gave you "hot" which you could "measure" with temperature, though I find even 80° hot while someone in Arizona may not).

These are just the conditions you've encountered, and both you and your playing partners/opponents need to deal with it.  You have to improvise and play different kinds of shots.  Sometimes "normal" doesn't work so figure something else out.  Again the set up might be silly but it is not unfair.

Then perhaps for many people "unfair" and "silly" are synonyms.

This is why I suggested playing more links golf.

I mostly skipped responding to that part, because you've got no idea how much links golf I've played, what I've thought of it, and how big a role I think luck plays in it. I'm far more toward the side of "luck never really occurs, because everything is governed and dictated by physics" than "oh man that hill made my ball carom to the left!" I've birdied the Road Hole by flying a shot 90 yards and letting it roll the other 90.

Links golf can be more a test of character than a test of skill.  When your “perfect” drive ends up in a unplayable circumstance, or you when are 190 yards from the green and your caddie tells you land the ball 120 yards so it doesn’t go off the back of the green, or when a squall rolls in and the wind and rain is whipping sideways to the point where it is tough to stand over a short or a putt,... this is all part of links golf and many would deem this "unfair".

I don't agree that it's more about "character" than skill. I played Turnberry (pre-Trump) on a day so windy every other course in the area was closed. I played some shots 45° to their final target just so the wind could throw it back over dry land. You may be assuming too much here, Mark. You seem to be dead set, which is fine - it's certainly an approach I've had from time to time - but this is a matter of opinion here, not fact.

I have heard many Americans playing links golf for the first time say, “this is not golf”.  But it is.  We just play a much more sterile and sometimes bland game back here in the U.S.

I won't agree to disagree there, because I've written countless times how much more fun (sorry, it fits here!) and imaginative and testing and whatever else actual links golf can be. I'm the snob who hates when golfers describe any golf course without many trees as "links-like."

I just never like to hear the words fair or unfair used to describe a game that is anything but equitable.  Nothing is fair about golf and the more we try to make it equitable the more expensive the game gets and the more it suffers.

I don't agree, because my definition of "fair" includes a little room for luck (good and bad).

Anyway, you have a different definition than I, and apparently accept when greens committees and whatnot mis-use the word "fair." That much seems clear, so, I've little or nothing more to add here.

[Sean_A]

What is "my" definition of fair about?  Aren't there books called dictionaries which when in doubt folks can consult for definitions?  Seems like an incredibly complicated thread for a straight forward situation.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

"Fairness" is a construct of the mind of man; it is not a part of nature.  And, as has been pointed out, usually when someone says, "That's not fair!" they mean at least in part that they didn't get the outcome they wanted.  I think we all understand that.
As an analogy, consider what a "fair" trial means.  It does NOT mean that you are guaranteed the outcome that you want, or even that is correct.  It means that you are guaranteed a process that is the same as anyone else.  Our hope is that if we DO it right, we will GET it right.  We don't always get it right, and there are certainly inequalities in the justice system, but the term "due process" ties to the idea that we guarantee the process to which you are entitled.  But not the outcome...
I think we can also all agree that the word "fair" is used in golf, as in life, more in connection with things like tough pin positions or severe greens or quirky holes that keep us from the outcome that we wish or think that we deserve.  I think we can all agree that using "fair" that way isn't useful, and I don't think Geoff Shackelford was doing anything of the sort.
I think the contrast between what the R&A does (or really, does NOT do) and what the USGA does is analogous to the difference between two judicial systems that function very differently, REGARDLESS OF OUTCOMES.  At the British Open, year after year, players get due process; at the US Open they do not. 

As distasteful as the Mickelson incident was on Saturday at Shinnecock, and as little sympathy as most of us had and have for him, the simple fact is that the other two incidents that were "precedents", if you will, were Triplett at Olympic and Daly at Pinehurst.  What the three incidents had in common were that they happened at the US Open.  Draw your own conclusions from the fact that you don't see those things happen anywhere else.  (And this is NOT to excuse any of those three golfers, btw, so don't misread this or take me to task about it.)

[Mark_Fine]

The dictionary describes “fair” as - just or appropriate.  There is little that is just or appropriate about golf and when we try to condition the outcomes so that everyone and every shot is treated uniformly, the game gets more expensive and more sterile.  I guess I shouldn't complain as the pursuit of fairness keeps me busy.  Most golf projects get started because members/golfers complain about their bunkers being inconsistent and "unfair"!

Peter might have said it best, using fair to describe golf is like using honest to describe a watermelon.

Enjoy your day everyone.  I am going to layout some new forward tees that I know someone will think are “unfair”

[Kalen Braley]

I don't doubt fair can be defined in some way.


But if you go back to a few pages ago, the gist of the question was:


How do you define "tough but fair" and distinguish it from "tough but unfair" in terms of golf with examples.  This is the crux of the argument that Mark and I and others have maintained.

[Sean_A]

I don't doubt fair can be defined in some way.

But if you go back to a few pages ago, the gist of the question was:

How do you define "tough but fair" and distinguish it from "tough but unfair" in terms of golf with examples.  This is the crux of the argument that Mark and I and others have maintained.

Golf isn't a fair or unfair dichotomy regardless of the coupled adjectives. Golf is what it is, its the golfers which bring their ideas of what golf should or shouldn't be to the table.  Even so, imo, courses are by default fair because they "treat" everybody the same.  Its up to golfers to figure out how to get around.  If you don't like courses which are too tough, don't go back, but don't use "fair" as an excuse to make up for your lack of skill.

Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't doubt fair can be defined in some way.


But if you go back to a few pages ago, the gist of the question was:


How do you define "tough but fair" and distinguish it from "tough but unfair" in terms of golf with examples.  This is the crux of the argument that Mark and I and others have maintained.

Easiest question in golf, though I'd change "but" to "and", since toughness and fairness are unrelated:
The British Open setup year in and year out is "tough but fair".  (As is AGNC.  As is the PGA.  As are regular Tour stops.)  On the other hand, the US Open setup year in and year out is "tough AND unfair".  Which was Geoff Shackelford's point, I believe.
I think this works nicely with the dictionary definition of fair that Mark Fine quoted; "just or appropriate".

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There is little that is just or appropriate about golf

I strongly disagree.

And to support that I will point out that better players win far more frequently.

[George Pazin]

If luck accounted for even one stroke per round the same people wouldn't consistently win on every level. Golf is a game of skill no matter how much the unskilled would like to change it.

+1

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()