[Matt_Ward]

I often hear the two terms -- fair & unfair -- hotly debated by all types of golfer. I just have to ask what would be an appropriate definition for each?

Is it possible one man's "unfair" is another's "fair" and vice versa?

Is blatant "unfairness" ever appropriate in the design of a hole or series of holes?

Or can it be possible to provide a definition that most can agree to?

I personally believe courses / holes that don't have some sort of "consistent" identifier with rewarding / penalizing shots can be "unfair." I neither expect, nor can one hope for 100% consistency in doling out the same result time after time after time but when a hole / course routinely fails to provide some sort of "consistent benchmark" you have a situation where unfairness can be more the "rule" rather than the exception.

Before all of you throw grenades at my initial definition of the terms please provide yours as well. Many thanks ... you just helped with a 19th hole argument I'm having with a few of my golfing chums.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I played a course where the tee ball could be more than 220 yards on about 6 holes.  The owners are not long hitters and so made sure that their length off the tee could not give them an advantage on shots to the green.

I have played some courses that have looong par fours and greens that are so severly sloped that two putting is an accomplishment.  Bogey is a good score.  I would say that is unfair.

I agree that a hole here and there that I would consider unfair is just tough.  A course that has hole after unfair hole is not enjoyable or good golf.

I think every hole should have some feature that protects par and birdie.  On a paar four it may  be a tight drive or the need to it an accurate second shot.  Or it could be a hole where hitting the gree is relatively easy for most players but there is a premium on putting.  

Unfair would be haaving to hit every shot on a particular hole perfectly, or par or bogey are impossible.  The game needs to
require the player to hit good shots but not penalize mediocre shots without being able make par with a very good recovery shots.

I am also getting tired of water hazards that encroach on every shot.  FOr instance the Sandpiper golf course at Innisbrook is ok for low hadicappers but for most golfers they lose a dozen balls and have to many X's.  

[Michael Dugger]

Nothing is unfair, just poor design.  

[Matt_Ward]

mdugger:

Define "poor design."

[A_Clay_Man]

Poor design would be where there is no alternatives or only one definition of a perfect shot. This however is not unfair, it just is. If it takes you all day to put the ball in the hole, on just one hole, why is that unfair, when half the field can do it in half a day? As long as the field of play is the same, for all golfers, on any given day, (excluding weather) the term unfair is way too subjective for the spirit of this game.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Matt,
My personal definiton of unfair is when a properly conceived and fairly struck shot has very little or no chance of remaining on or near the intended target.

[Michael Dugger]

Matt,

I think Adam hit the nail on the head as far as what I was thinking.  I am not trying to be difficult as I clearly understand where the notion of 'unfair' comes from.  

Yet, I just find it to be a poor choice of terms, but nonetheless, it certainly is one that average Joe golfer throws around with the likes of....

"it is a signature design" & "tomorrow my buddy and I are going to hit the links"

I don't think any design is unfair, per se, and the whole topic reminds me of the great story Captain Thomas told about one of his devilish pin placements on the 17th at LACC.  Hopefully, you recall the story.

From the top of my head.....poor or 'unfair' design would include

1. Pins located on a severe slope or a crown, although I think this is as much the greenskeeper's fault as the architect's.

2. Hidden bunkers, although a blind hole is only blind the first time you play it.

3. Cross hazards that force the player to lay up because they are IMPOSSIBLE to clear, yet the nature of the hole is one in which the following shot is overly long.  I'm thinking a par four with a cross of about 100 yards between 200 and 300.

4. SEVERELY uphill shots.  Billy goat golf






 

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Tough question. Not sure I can give a precise answer, but something like what Jim Kennedy offered comes to mind.

Actually, Jim's response got me to thinking about #10 green at Shinnecock, a course I know you are fond of.

How good of an approach shot does one have to hit? Should most people even try to leave an uphill putt? Or does the prudent man just hit safely long and trust his ability to hit a nice downhill lag putt and, hopefully, make no worse than bogey? And, if so, does this make the hole unfair.....or could it just be lots of both challenge and fun, especially in a match play situation?

So, I really don't know what is fair. But, I'm inclined to think the answer lies more in what the mid handicapper can or can't do that what the scratch player is capable of doing. Suppose an architect built a hole with a fairway 25 ish yards wide and water on both sides of the landing area. And he did it on several holes.

That might not be "unfair" but it certainly wouldn't be fun for the vast majority of people playing the game. And maybe that is all that needs to be said.

[Doug Siebert]

The more unfair a course, the less relation there is to a properly conceived shot executed correctly producing the intended result.

[RDecker]

Holes that don't ask the golfer to think are unfair to the golfer that has developed an all-around game and can hit a variety of shots.  His creativity and imagination are the reason why golf and it's best venues exist.  Courses that don't recognize and reward this are unfair.  I'm not saying the unimaginative golfer can't play too, just that he should be at a disadvantage and be coaxed into becoming the other type of player.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug S:

Your defintion is really not any different than what I originally stated.

The crucial ingredient being some sort of "consistency" in rewarding / penalizing shots made on a specific hole or through ones total time on a particular course.

My broader question was quite straightforward -- is it ever "fair" for holes to be created / designed that are patently "unfair?"

Tim W:

I don't doubt any hole / course may have a very high degree of being quite "picky" about what constitutes a "fair" situation. Those courses are IMHO quite demanding but they still provide some sort of reasonableness. In using your example witht he 10th at SH -- one doesn't have to be so gutsy and try to stick the approach so close to the front in order to get the putt you desire. There is an alternative -- albeit not the preferred one but one is available.

What I think you missed from my original statement was that when it becomes clear that there is NO consistency to a given situation -- that luck as much as skill becomes the prevailing aspect you don't have a real link to "fairness" but utter randomness which is on the slippery slope to "unfairness" IMHO.

I hope I clarified my original statement much clearer for you to understand.

[DMoriarty]

The crucial ingredient being some sort of "consistency" in rewarding / penalizing shots made on a specific hole or through ones total time on a particular course.

I would say that the above is a crucial ingredient of theunfair course.   If a course consistently doled out the result I deserve, then how would I ever make birdie?  How would I ever win a hole I had no right winning?  How would I ever win a skin? Get a lucky bounce? Watch my opponent get a terrible bounce?  Make a 60 foot putt?  Have a clear shot out of the woods?  Curse the golf Gods? Etc.  

A golf course should allow the crummy player to sometimes win through little doing of his own and cause a great player to lose through no fault of his own.  Anything else would be positively unfair.

A couple of questions for you Matt?

1.  Where did you ever get this silly notion that the objective of golf architecture was to reward or penalize the skill and execution of the golfer?

2.  How do you (or anyone else) decide which golfing skills should most be rewarded?  

[cary lichtenstein]

Unfair is where a course beats you up to such an extent that you do not want to return to play it again. Unfair is poor design.

[TEPaul]

Define "Fair" & "Unfair"

Ok, they're two terms that in the context of golf should never be used!

[SPDB]

Unfair would, in my mind, be the tee shot which even the average golfer would not be able to execute 7 times out of 10.

For example, if Merion's back tee on 18 were the only tee playable on a daily basis, that would be unfair. An extreme example, I know because its not reality, but you see it a lot with courses that are designed with only the championship player in mind.

[Thomas_Brown]

I like this topic.  Though each player will have their own opinion to say the least.

Unfair -
  1) Hole locations on severe slopes.
      #18 at Olympic for Payne Stewart years ago.
      I played in a college tournament w/ the slope on #6 Coto de Caza where putts from below the hole would come back 15 feet.   That was unfair, though I was only one in the group to one putt .
      #16 North Berwick - If I were Open qualifying there and 3 putted, I'd probably call it unfair.
  2) Bunkers that funnel into an 8.5" X 11" piece of paper.
      Rustic Canyon #8 front left bunker is little too severe.
      David Duval now thinks #17 TOC Road Hole bunker is.
  3) Par 5 tee shots that zero out options.
      Some cape holes end up too severe.
      #14 Meadow Lake Country Club in Escondido.
          I've learned "to chip" a 4 iron off this tee.
      Ladybank in Scotland hole #7(I think?)
          Go ahead and ask what the Open qualifying scores are like there.

I see David Moriarty's point, but there is some merit to this topic.  Not every course should be a "match play" course.  
Consider this stroke play e.g.
#10 at Pauma Valley CC. 370 yards uphill w/ a fairway that is 15-20 yards wide.  The green has a steep bunker in front and mamy of the hole locations on the green are unusable.  In a past US Open qualifier, they had a bad hole location - Many of the entrants decided after 3 or 4 tries to take the "ball in motion" penalty and knock in while it was around the cup.
Unfair?  Yes.
Disclaimer: I love Pauma Valley and the 10th when the hole location is in a reasonable.

#10 green at Shinnecock is good example of severity.
Some of the hole locations there are dangerous.

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

I think my definition pretty much implies some level of consistency of results.  If there's no consistency, there's no correlation.  Maybe its just a matter of terminology (as such things often are)  As for your second question, it seems a bit of a tautology, but ignoring that, it just gets down to whether an individual believes fairness is important in the game, or how much unfairness one is willing to accept.  I'm willing to accept a fair mount of unfairness (no pun intended ), but not to the point I have to keep whacking a 15 foot putt over and over again until I finally make it!  I think to some extent it depends on the course, some courses have more luck inherent in their design and environment, so throwing in an "unfair" hole (like the approach to the Jubilee's 15th that some people seem to think is unfair) is more reasonable than it might be elsewhere.


Thomas Brown,

Did players in an open qualifier really deliberately hit putts while they are moving with the intent of taking the moving ball penalty?  I guess I'm not sure, but that would seem to fall under "exerting undue influence on the ball", which is a two stroke penalty (added to the stroke for striking a moving ball I believe) and if the committee decided was a major violation would result in disqualification.  If it only cost me a stroke, I could think of some situations with a tricky downhill putt or chip where I might want to chase behind the ball and knock it in as it goes by the hole, clearly that can't be allowed as it goes 100% against the way golf has been played since day one.

[hp@hc]

Firstly, it is almost impossible to define "fair and unfair", which is why I suspect Matt has started the thread - he loves to open a door and sit back and watch everyone go at it!

Anyway, unfair to me centers around green speeds.  I have not seen too many courses where tee shots or second shots were unfair, unless of course the green prevented the average player from execution of the shot at hand.  Take PVGC for example - if the greens were sooooooo fast, would the green be FAIR on hole #2 with all that slope?  I mean, you could be playing ping-pong on that green for a while unless you hit the flag.  Another example would be hole #1 at Torresdale Frankford - at times a green where with a wedge in your hand you intentionally lay up.  Sound silly?  If you hit past the flag, your next shot would most likely be a wedge anyway, so why not get right to it!

The other element of greens is if they are so firm you cannot hold them.  Now while I think it is acceptable with open-fronted approaches, as we play in the UK, I am disgusted by US courses that require you to carry water fronting the green, and stop the ball on a surface similar to a ice rink.  One should be able to hold the green with a perfectly executed shot, but I have seen a few examples where no matter what you do, you are over the green.  That is not golf, that is trickery, and has no place in the game.  Put a 15 handicapper on hole #12 at Augusta with a 4 -iron in his hand and his options quickly become . . (1) back bunker, or (2) water.  Tell me that's fair!

In general, if I ever leave a golf course with "unfair" thoughts, it almost always relates to a combination of green speeds and pin locations.  So then it all comes back to the condition of greens, and how they have made the game "silly" at times rather than challenging.

Of course, Matt, you may have a different opinion

[A_Clay_Man]

"as few strokes as possible"

NOT

You shall make pars, birdies, bogies and others.

The former is unlimited in it's absolute value, while the latter is a subjective view of a game that is difficult to quantify.

On the thread a few years ago discussing what's "unfair" the conclusion was a hole location on the middle of the hump on 14 at PB when green speeds are over a tem on the stimp.

The truth is, the shot/putt requires perfect execution. Anything less than perfect, needs the hand of god to go in the cup.

Unfair is a whine best served to those crow eaters for their lack of execution.

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

What's so "silly" in providing some sort of consistency? Oh -- I forgot -- you would much rather have no benchmarks in rewarding / penalizing play -- it should be nothing but random in nature. That's a marvelous theory -- when you design such an inane course please don't hesitate to NOT call me to see such a classic retarded layout. Last I checked golf is a game of skill and that skill is identified through some sort of design that can clearly DISTINGUISH AND IDENTIFY the level of execution --- when luck becomes the dominant ingredient in identifying such shots through a reward / penalty scale you have another game IMHO.

By the way David -- how bout you providing your own definition of "fairness" and "unfairness?"

Let's also remember something -- I never said 100% guarantees in all situations. David -- do yourself a big favor --and read the first post I made.  

To answer your second question -- the architect determines the skills necessary by his design. That design should attempt to understand that golf is a game and a game must have some sort of framework to it in order to provide some benchmark in identifying who the better player is.

I don't doubt that luck or the "rub of the green" is a part of the game but when holes / courses overinflate the "rub of the green" to be a dominant aspect of the experience then IMHO you have a layout which is "unfair."

Classic examples were stated by Thomas relating to the nonsensical pin location on the 18th at The Olympic Club during the '98 Open. Let's also not forget the manner by which the 17th fairway at the same facility was cut in which tee shots would invariably roll to the right and reach the rough because of the slant of the fairway and the close cut applied. The same thing also applied to the 10th at Oakmont with the fairway so narrow and balls routinely falling off to the right hand rough in a number of major championships played there.

You can also make a case that the set-up for the '74 Open at Winged Foot was also in that league.

You also have "unfair" situations such as the nonsense the USGA did with the 10th and 12th holes of the '02 Open at Bethpage Black. Moving up the tees just a tad would have been more appropriate. You can also make a strong case that the manner by whicht he R&A set up Carnoustie for the '99 Open was also assbackward.

I disagree with hp@hc (what else is new! ) when he says unfairness is a situation "almost always" related to greens and pin locations -- however, I do agree the likelihood for "unfairness" is likely to be there more often because of its unique impact on scoring through putting.

[hp@hc]

   Didn't take you long Matt - nice post.  From all accounts, you disagree with the term "almost always", but are content with "the likelihood is likely more often".

Funny thing is, even when you agree with me you insert the words :disagree".

[Matt_Ward]

hp@hc:

What are friends for ...

Best wishes in the New Year ...

matt

[hp@hc]

And to you and yours

[A_Clay_Man]

Last I checked golf is a game of skill and that skill is identified through some sort of design that can clearly DISTINGUISH AND IDENTIFY the level of execution --- when luck becomes the dominant ingredient in identifying such shots through a reward / penalty scale you have another game IMHO.



 the architect determines the skills necessary by his design. That design should attempt to understand that golf is a game and a game must have some sort of framework to it in order to provide some benchmark in identifying who the better player is.

I don't doubt that luck or the "rub of the green" is a part of the game but when holes / courses overinflate the "rub of the green" to be a dominant aspect of the experience then IMHO you have a layout which is "unfair."

Classic examples were stated by Thomas relating to the nonsensical pin location on the 18th at The Olympic Club during the '98 Open.



You also have "unfair" situations such as the nonsense the USGA did with the 10th and 12th holes of the '02 Open at Bethpage Black. Moving up the tees just a tad would have been more appropriate. You can also make a strong case that the manner by whicht he R&A set up Carnoustie for the '99 Open was also assbackward.

I disagree with hp@hc (what else is new! ) when he says unfairness is a situation "almost always" related to greens and pin locations -- however, I do agree the likelihood for "unfairness" is likely to be there more often because of its unique impact on scoring through putting.

Matt- Last time I checked, golf is more than a game.

second point- That benchmark would be "as few strokes as necessary to get the ball in the hole", however it's designed.

3) How does a course over-inflate "rub of the green"?

And on your last two points, from someone who was at the O club in 98 and saw the hole in question, I can only conclude that a golfer who feels he's accomplished, cries unfair, when the difficulty is not overcome.

Shivas- Start with my favorite " F%$^ our ever getting better"

[Thomas_Brown]

Doug Siebert - Yes - some players just took the penalty as the ball was moving.  It was 20 feet down the slope if you missed.  I think there is a specific rule for hitting a ball in motion.  The committee was so embarrassed this incident was not given further publicity by DQ's.

Matt Ward - I was at the Open at Bethpage too.
I thought the elimination of hole locations on #15 was more controversial than the tee shots at #10 & #12.  So what if Corey Pavin had to lay up on #12.  I think #10 was no big deal, but that's just me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()