[Erik J. Barzeski]

You are hung up on the rule book . The origin of Rub of the Green is LUCK!

We're talking about golf. In golf, "rub of the green" has a definition.

But let's say it has multiple definitions and all are valid… it follows that the same can apply to the words "fair" and "unfair." 

[Mark_Fine]

And in golf fair and unfair can’t be defined (or are they in the 150 + pages of the rules of golf)?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And in golf fair and unfair can’t be defined (or are they in the 150 + pages of the rules of golf)?

I provided a definition that I use as it applies to a course or setup. My definition doesn't include a ball finding a divot hole, a bunker that's a little different from another, a ball hitting a sprinkler head, uneven lies in the fairway due to contours or bumps and swales, etc. despite the many times you mentioned those things.

If your last part was a slam on the Rules ( ), I'll ignore it, because… why? 

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
It was not a slam on the rules.  If anything I was pointing out how complicated the game has gotten in the attempt to make it more fair. 


Be clear I think your definition of “fair” is perfectly fine.  The problem I have been unsuccessfully trying to point out is that everyone has their own definition.  Furthermore, unlike the phrase rub of the green, the pursuit of fairness causes problems.  If you don’t think that is the case then our position is miles apart. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It was not a slam on the rules.  If anything I was pointing out how complicated the game has gotten in the attempt to make it more fair.

The NFL's rules are 93 8.5 x 11" pages. The rules for the NHL, NBA, and MLB are about as long. The Rules of Golf aren't "complicated" given that we have such varied playing fields, so many varied formats, etc.

Be clear I think your definition of “fair” is perfectly fine. The problem I have been unsuccessfully trying to point out is that everyone has their own definition. Furthermore, unlike the phrase rub of the green, the pursuit of fairness causes problems. If you don’t think that is the case then our position is miles apart.

I think it can cause problems. I don't think it always does, or even necessarily that it does the majority of the time.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Note: I don't mean for this boundary or gradient between "luck" and results or whatever existing everywhere. Obviously, for example, if you have a cape hole, a ball that is 1 yard over the water on a line is a great result, perhaps, while one 1 yard short is a horrible result. Those "lines" or edges will exist everywhere - a ball a foot further up on a green at Augusta National will stay while one one foot short rolls off the front. I'm talking about play away from those "edge" cases, or minimized "edge" cases. If the majority of shots introduce these "edge" cases, the course is fluky and prone to "luck" more than skill. You won't ever eliminate luck entirely, but a "fair" design, IMO (as all of this is), reduces it to a manageable or expected level.
...

OK, name one course where "the majority of shots introduce these "edge" cases", i.e., one "fluky" course, and explain how it meets that standard.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()