News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Fairness ....nah
« on: February 20, 2020, 09:14:11 AM »
 ;) ;)


When we built Twisted Dune I kept thinking about how the average player could negotiate their way around. In fact "fairness"  was in the back of my mind at various times in the birthing process. Twenty years later my thought process has changed a bit.  Quirk and random bunkering are some of the more interesting architectural features to me right now. Less worry about "fairness" if I was ever to do another.

As an outlier to my new thinking micro contouring on greens doesn't float my boat as a seven foot putt that breaks three ways seems a little much. I;m thinking unfair  ;D ;D  and silly. A ten footer that breaks three different ways is just contrived to me.


How do you guys equate  fair and good in GCA?  Does an attempt to be fair challenge creativity?
« Last Edit: February 21, 2020, 01:24:34 AM by archie_struthers »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2020, 09:29:12 AM »
Archie -
yes, one of the hardest questions to answer in all of life: why do bad things happen to good people?
Which is to say: I think there's enough 'unfairness' to go around already.
Is it too much to ask that architects don't (artificially) add to it? 
Isn't trying to ignore the concept of fairness just as contrived as trying to avoid unfairness?   


archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2020, 09:45:10 AM »
 8)




Even as a devotee of quirk there are certain things that are de riguer in design. A forced lay up off the tee that mandates a 225 yard second shot isn't, it's silly.


But some random bunkers or rumpled fairways work well and an occasional bad bounce doesn't make me crazy anymore. I don't like collection areas at all and the sameness of result they bring. A good false front is really nice though!
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 04:09:50 PM by archie_struthers »

Jim Hoak

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2020, 10:58:14 AM »
I agree that this is one of the most difficult things to define and judge--especially as it relates to greens and internal rolls.  How do you make a green "interesting" without making it "silly"?  And how do you define each of those?  And is "fairness" the goal?  And does fairness sometimes take away from creativity?
I played a non-famous Maxwell course the other day.  And my overriding impression was how interesting and fun the greens were with subtle rolls that didn't feel to be over-the-top.  Some modern architecture at times seems to me has rolls that are solely meant to call attention to themselves.  It takes skill to build greens that are interesting without hitting you in the face.  Maybe they are not "fair" because they make architecture the focus rather than the game of golf.

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2020, 11:27:17 AM »
Personally, I think it's time to banish that word from gca discussions.


"Reasonable" is much more appropriate for something like this thread.


It's not reasonable to have a layup followed by a 225-yard shot.


Nor is it reasonable to put a lake in front of the green such that many (most?) players have to hit a 50-yard chip so they can get over it on their next shot.


K
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Peter Pallotta

Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2020, 11:37:38 AM »
...It takes skill to build greens that are interesting without hitting you in the face.  Maybe they are not "fair" because they make architecture the focus rather than the game of golf.


I think that's a really excellent point/perspective, Jim.
As soon as the architecture is (or appears to be) there for 'its own sake', it changes everything.
And, from what I can tell, architects err on the side of 'too much architecture' quite often.
It takes 'skill' not to hit us in the face with the architecture; more than that, though, it takes a dedicated 'intention'. 
« Last Edit: February 20, 2020, 11:41:28 AM by Peter Pallotta »

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2020, 03:11:30 PM »
;) ;)


Quirk and random bounces and random bunkering are some of the more interesting architectural features to me right now.


As an outlier micro contouring on greens doesn't float my boat as a seven foot putt that breaks three ways seems a little much. How do you guys equate  fair and good in GCA


Perhaps you feel that way because you've seen a lot and are an accomplished player seeking new thrills.


There is quite a bit of stuff in the psychology literature suggesting that rewarding the same behavior very differently can have highly negative results.  At a minimum it is confusing and creates uncertainty and anxiety, all detrimental to healthy living and a good golf game.  Me, I am much happier when my rare good swing results in the ball reacting to the terrain as was correctly visualized.  Perhaps it is a matter of selective perception, but my bad bounces seem to outnumber the good ones by a factor of 10 to 1.


As to the greens, I am with you.  I once played a course highly regarded on this site where I missed a difficult shot to a green on the proper side (the opposite was a creek running diagonally).  In looking for a line to get the 30-40' chip close to the hole, the many small high and low spots- mini moguls- throughout the green made it look more like pin ball than golf.  In exasperation, I went at the hole and didn't get it within 30', only to go through a similar process on the subsequent putt.   

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2020, 04:15:29 PM »
 8) :D


Lou I used to be totally on board that the result should be consistent and you shouldn't have a bunker where a higher handicapper only would hit it. Thought that the best architecture would thwart the scratch player and make it easy for the average player to make a bogey or a one putt par. Not so sure that was right anymore. I'm liking "stuff" that kind of jumps up and grabs you and the occasional green that's really a little wacky. Just a phase perhaps but that's what I'm enjoying the most.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2020, 04:21:06 PM »
;) ;)

When we built Twisted Dune in the back of my mind I kept thinking about how the average player could negotiate their way around. In fact "fairness"  was in the back of my mind at various times in the process. Twenty years later I would take the op sit thought process into the fray. Quirk and random bounces and random bunkering are some of the more interesting architectural features to me right now.

As an outlier micro contouring on greens doesn't float my boat as a seven foot putt that breaks three ways seems a little much. How do you guys equate  fair and good in GCA

I think its very tough to build in random bounces without the landscape looking very contrived.  On the other hand I have rarely seen microundulations which I don't like!  When I think of places like TOC and Deal the microundulations are a major part of the design appeal. 

To me, there are no good or bad bounces unless the land is so severely contoured (TOC and Deal are not) that it is nearly impossible to hit such a small spot to get the desired kick.  Otherwise, with experience, the overwhelming percentage of bounces are predictable.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2020, 04:27:51 PM »
 8)


Sean that's why I'm good with local knowledge being important.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2020, 04:59:41 AM »
8)

Sean that's why I'm good with local knowledge being important.

Archie

Sure, and it goes deeper than that. If golf is getting on board with less and less inputs, this should usually yield drier courses. Drier courses yield firmer courses which in turn demands alternative entry points into greens... if the design is interesting. If people are for less input maintenance it stands to reason they should usually be open to the idea of open access to greens. This type of design still leaves plenty of scope for some closed off greens and out of position carry hazards near greens.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2020, 02:13:46 PM »
8)


Even as a devotee of quirk there are certain things that are de riguer in design. A forced lay up off the tee that mandates a 225 yard second shot isn't, it's silly.



Would you say the same thing about a bunker that mandates a 150 or 180 yard second shot?  Because there are a ton of golfers who can't reach the green from there ... but somehow, you picked the distance that affects YOU (or the people you think of as "good" golfers) as the line of unfairness.


I'm not a big fan of layup tee shots generally, but if one is fair than all of them are.

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2020, 02:34:54 PM »
Even as a devotee of quirk there are certain things that are de riguer in design. A forced lay up off the tee that mandates a 225 yard second shot isn't, it's silly.


Quoting a specific distance isn’t I suggest appropriate in relation to a forced lay-up, although I appreciate that in this instance it may be for indicative purposes.
Seeing it as more a situation where the next shot is longer than the lay-up is perhaps a more appropriate way of looking at things.
Of course we all have different carry distances and other factors effect individual instances too like wind direction, turf firmness/softness etc.
Atb

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #13 on: February 22, 2020, 02:58:49 AM »

Even as a devotee of quirk there are certain things that are de riguer in design. A forced lay up off the tee that mandates a 225 yard second shot isn't, it's silly.



What if its a par 5?



A ravine 270 yards from the tee might well dictate a lay-up for flat-bellies followed by a long second shot to reach the green in two.


For the other 99% of golfers however, the challenge will be to clear the ravine with the second shot at all after a really good drive in order to set up their pitch to the green. Many will be laying up with their second shot!


If the hole is a 460 yard par 4 how is it a forced lay-up for long hitters if there is 225 yards to the green? Surely they should be tempted into carrying the trouble. If they choose to play safe and lay up then it isn't forced.


Nowhere in any of these scenarios can I see anything that is necessarily "unfair" or "silly".
« Last Edit: February 22, 2020, 03:06:52 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #14 on: February 22, 2020, 07:18:09 AM »
 8)


Duncan while I'm sure that there is a scenario for just about anything in golf design,  played a hole in Maryland where you had to hit 7 iron off the tee to lay up from a hazard and then a 200 yard second shot over water. Not good ! Quirky yes , but silly too.


On your par five question I'd be all for a risk reward tee shot to get a shot at the green but I can think of a par five right around the corner where the average player hits driver to a landing zone, wedge to stay short of the next hazard and from there must hit it 225 to reach the green, not good just silly. The designer missed the mark.




John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2020, 07:58:09 AM »
When I was a child I was bitching about fairness to our pro and he gave me some simple advice: Hit the ball high cause there ain’t no bunkers in the sky.

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #16 on: February 22, 2020, 08:21:46 AM »
I was thinking about Archie’s post re par five options and the 10th hole at Dormie Club popped into my head. For those that have played it do you think there is a “fairness” issue? Someone that hits a drive 225 and a fairway wood 210 is hand cuffed on the second shot requiring a play right of the waste area that guards the left side of the hole. The third is then 200 yards or more to hit the green. Does no options for the shorter hitter equal “unfair”?

Peter Pallotta

Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2020, 08:33:42 AM »
I was thinking about Archie’s post re par five options and the 10th hole at Dormie Club popped into my head. For those that have played it do you think there is a “fairness” issue? Someone that hits a drive 225 and a fairway wood 210 is hand cuffed on the second shot requiring a play right of the waste area that guards the left side of the hole. The third is then 200 yards or more to hit the green. Does no options for the shorter hitter equal “unfair”?
Reading Tim's description made me think of a word that may be a better description/definition of the kind of things Archie is talking about, i.e.
It's not that it's "unfair", but that it's "unpleasant".
For those of who you have played many of Tom D's courses, is there a golf hole you'd call "unpleasant"?
On those charming classic quirky natural GB&I courses, there may be holes that can cause "unfair" bounces/results, but are there many that folks would call "unpleasant"?
For me, when I think of golf holes I've played, if they are unpleasant it ends almost all discussion right away -- I couldn't care less if they are fair or unfair, since they've already lost me by being unpleasant.   


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #18 on: February 22, 2020, 08:44:10 AM »
If you can walk to it you can putt to it. Golf always offers two options for those who find the game unpleasant. Pick up or shut up.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #19 on: February 22, 2020, 11:59:37 AM »


Perhaps you feel that way because you've seen a lot and are an accomplished player seeking new thrills.


There is quite a bit of stuff in the psychology literature suggesting that rewarding the same behavior very differently can have highly negative results.  At a minimum it is confusing and creates uncertainty and anxiety, all detrimental to healthy living and a good golf game.  Me, I am much happier when my rare good swing results in the ball reacting to the terrain as was correctly visualized.  Perhaps it is a matter of selective perception, but my bad bounces seem to outnumber the good ones by a factor of 10 to 1.




Lou,


OT but it reminds me of one day in college where I go to the gym.  Some cute and very fit girls come up and say they are doing a study on fitness and would my friend and I volunteer.  Of course.


They had us run a 50 yard dash, do some pull ups, etc.  However, even though I knew I had won the 50, they announce the times and I had come in second.  I was pissed!  Other contests turned out similarly. It turns out they were phycology students doing a study on how people react to being treated wrongly, and the point they made was similar to what you allude to in your post.


It's really all along the scale when it comes to golf fairness and golfer perceptions, as pointed out here.  As an architect, I believe that if I eliminate all I can as purposeful design, there will still be some rub of the green.  I also believe golfer perception of fairness varies (usually whether something happens to them, or their opponent) but in general, getting screwed randomly a few times is accepted, but repeatedly coming out on the short end of the straw by what seems to be specific design characteristics, will eventually get to them and send them scurrying to play some other course.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2020, 10:45:27 AM »

As Mark Fine and I wrote (mostly Mark in this excerpt) in "Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards",

The Concept of Fairness

The modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of golf. For a pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed booklet of over 150-pages is required to explain the game. Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered, at least somewhat.

Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed to making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” disadvantage. This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds. Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes—one good and one bad. That would just not be “fair”—or would it? 

Have golf architects and the clients they work with forgotten what golf is really all about? The game was never meant to emulate physics where every action equates to an equal and opposite reaction. As with life, golf is expected to have ups and downs. Some days a golfer might do everything right, and yet the result still turns out bad. Other times, a lucky bounce or carom might lead to good fortune even when the swing and all its results should have led to an awful mess. Golf can teach us many lessons about life, but only if we allow skill, luck and fate to all remain part of the game. 

If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges will remain? Aren’t those bumps in the road of life just like the hazards of golf? In many ways it is the triumph of overcoming a challeng which keeps us energized. Were it not for ordeals, it would only be a matter of time ‘till we would become complacent and our lives (or rounds) filled with boredom. 

When we think of “fairness,” one of your authors reminds the other of a situation that occurred at The Old Course at St. Andrews. Walking up the 18th fairway after hitting out final tee shots, one in our group cringed at the site of their ball laying dead center in the middle of Grannie Clark’s Wynd, a macadam road that crosses the 1st and 18th fairways. The thought crossed his mind, “Here we are playing the grandest of all golf courses and this perfectly struck drive on the final hole has found a lone stretch of rock-hard road in the center of the fairway. What a bad break. What poor luck to deserve such an unfair fate.” You see, in Scotland, and especially on the Old Course, you still play it as it lies and this little macadam path is considered an integral part of the golf course. There is no free drop to gain relief. No automatic allowance which says you can place the ball back on forgiving turf to play your next stroke. No, you are stuck with the situation and you deal with it the best you can.

As the golfer prepared to play his shot from the tightest of lies, it couldn’t be helped but to notice the spectators watching his misfortune from the fence rail along the hole. As his club swept through the ball and picked it cleanly off the hard dark surface there was a sense of elation as it rose quickly and somehow managed to scurry up onto the green surface coming to rest about 30 feet from the flagstick. 

The golfer’s walk to the green was one he or his playing partners would ever forget. Every one of the on-lookers had applauded the shot.  Two putts later, the golfer scored one of the greatest pars, and most memorable moments of his golfing career. And all thanks to what looked like a dire and “unfair” circumstance. 

But that is golf. Many of the elements which add so much richness to the game will be lost in our pursuit of “fairness.” There is too much at stake. The concept of fairness must be tempered at all cost.
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2020, 11:30:01 AM »
"Some cute and very fit girls come up and say they are doing a study on fitness and would my friend and I volunteer.  Of course."

Jeff Brauer,

You and your friend fell for the oldest pickup line in the book.   Talk about unfair!!
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Fairness ....nah
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2020, 08:34:34 PM »

As Mark Fine and I wrote (mostly Mark in this excerpt) in "Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards",

The Concept of Fairness

The modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of golf. For a pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed booklet of over 150-pages is required to explain the game. Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered, at least somewhat.

Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed to making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” disadvantage. This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds. Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes—one good and one bad. That would just not be “fair”—or would it? 








Excellent Point! Imagine the money spent just to give the high handicapper some small hope that he won't lose his ball even though he will find four others during the search.