[Matt_Ward]

Chris B:

Very interesting analysis but just a mile off in terms of reality.

First, people play different tee boxes as a matter of providing equity in terms of their match with someone who is a better player. Oh -- I forgot -- it's only a fair comparison if they play the SAME tees. How absurd!

When you set-up such a situation like that then clearly you get the result you want -- e.g, the better player will always win. How utterly convenient and tailored to your very narrow sense of the subject at hand.

Extreme forced carries can be beyond reason -- even for the better player -- in certain situations -- the one I described for the Rees Jones courses fits that bill IMHO.

Let's speak about Stone Canyon -- the forced layback is a direct intervention by the architect to take a club out of the hands of the better player. The hole in question does that -- it allows the lesser player though the opportunity to hit full out from the tee and still knowing he will not run out of run. I didn't say it gives the lesser player an AUTOMATIC edge but it does shift the situation where the more skilled player must make the greater switch in terms of strategic choices. Let me also point out that forcing the greater skilled player to layback also forces him / her to hit more club into the subject target. It's likely that this situation may lend itself to a higher score than if he / she were able to simply hit full driver and proceed into the green with a much shorter approach.

I do concur with Jeff B when he opined that shot / distance control is another tool of the architect but I question the approach when reasonable other alternatives can be introduced. The hole at Stone Canyon IMHO precludes that possibility.

My example with Carnoustie spoke to the issue of how skill was minimized for the world' better players (e.g. Woods, Singh, Love, etc, etc) by preparing the course in such a manner that luck becomes the primary thrust of the event. Help me out with something -- how many events of any type has Paul Lawrie won since that event? Also, let me know how many events Van de Velde has been a contender? Let's also be a bit more clear about the Frenchman's success in the event -- it was tied to the fact that he one-putted more often than just about anyone else. He gained by having a world class course bastardized by the set-up.

Let's also speak about Sawgrass -- the original layout with winds blowing in the spring (a common occurrence) precluded anything but an aerial game. You say the better player still has the option -- guess again -- you need to watch the tapes of the events played there over the years. The better player also faced situations where the ability to "cope" was severely tested. The lesser player (I'm not speaking about Joe Sixpack who has a 50/50 shot in getting a tee in the ground) could still make bogeys by simply avoiding the situation at hand. The greater player -- because of the set-up of the course and wind conditions at the time -- is hell bent on shooting an extremely low score and sometimes in "forcing the action" he is more susceptible to makign the kind of errors I originally mentioned.

Last item -- I'll say this again for the hard of hearing -- luck / unfairness / rub-of-the-greenm, etc, etc has a role -- I never said it didn't. I just favor courses that do what Shivas mentioned in his last post. Getting the ball to go where it is supposed to go and being the cause of it. Well said Shivas.  

[Doug Siebert]

Re: Sawgrass

Sorry Matt, but what a load of crap!  If bogey golf won at Sawgrass you might have a point, but it didn't.  So where is playing for bogey rewarded for the "lesser player"?  Maybe on a few holes, but if conditions turn a par 4 into a par 4.8 then maybe the "lesser player" is smarter playing it as if it was a par 5.

If the "greater player" is "hell bent on shooting an extremely low score and sometimes in 'forcing the action'" and loses as a result, I'm sorry, then there is NO WAY he really was the greater player, because a greater player will take what the course gives him, even if that means NO BIRDIE ATTEMPTS.  There is no right in golf for anyone to have birdie attempts, even Tiger.

Go read Shivas' reply to Dan about the "scratch golfer" with his head up his ass.  As an example, if you hit better shots than me, longer, more accurate, more consistent, hit your pitches and chips closer, make more putts, etc. but I beat you 20 out of 30 times, does that mean we're playing on an "unfair" course where luck is too big a factor?  If you have more skill, you seem to think you should be winning most of the time.  But if you're playing stupid, and try to "force the action" all the time instead of playing smart and taking what the course and the conditions allow you, your greater skill won't win against a smarter but not quite as skilled player, and it won't have anything to do with luck.

Not every great golfer is a winner because he's like Tiger and just better skilled than everyone else.  Hagen wasn't, but he managed to win quite a bit by knowing his limitations, what he could and couldn't do, and playing on psychology.  Some might feel he went too far, but even excluding some of the more gamey stuff, doing things like deliberately driving short to play first into the green, giving your opponent five footers on the first nine and then suddenly making him putt a crucial one on the back, etc. were brilliant match play strategy, but didn't have anything to do with his skill when holding a golf club in his hand.

[Matt_Ward]

Doug:

The issue at Sawgrass wasn't about Joe Sixpack playing against Tiger -- it was about the world class player going up against other lesser players on tour. Because of the set-up the outcomes was far from certain and it PERMITTED the lesser player to possibly be successful. Just check the names of the player who won at Sawgrass when the event was there and compare it to the names of the winners at TPC / Stadium.

[CHrisB]

Matt,
Rather than nitpicking arguments, I'll just state my position.

I agree with you that the holes that you mentioned are not ideal. I didn't care for the 12th at Stone Canyon either. I just don't think that they are "unfair" golf holes. If I had to label them anything I'd call them "poorly designed".

I don't think there is such a thing as an "unfair" golf hole; at least I haven't yet seen one.

I have seen playing conditions that borderline on "unfair", but none that have gone too far over the top for me.

I have yet to be convinced that at Carnoustie in 1999 or at Royal St. George's this year that it was (a) the playing conditions, rather than (b) the "better" players' reactions to the playing conditions, that dictated the outcome.

In my experience and observation, those whose complain about "unfairness" almost always are those who don't have the skill/ability/creativity/mental toughness to handle the situation. (I'm not saying that's the case here.)

I don't think a golf tournament can or should strive to identify the "best" player. I do think it should strive to identify the best play. But no course or setup can guarantee that the best player or even the best play will win.

I have more of a problem with course setups focusing too much on "identifying the best player", trying to eliminate luck, randomness, unfairness, etc.

The reason why it is futile to try to "identify the best player" is because there is no single definiton for the "best player". The object of the game is to get the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes, and there are so many different ways of doing this that no one course/setup can identify the "best player". There is only the "best play(er)" for that tournament, that course, that setup, those playing conditions.

I dislike the following words w.r.t. golf:
"fair", "unfair", "test", "identify", "reward"

Very interesting analysis but just a mile off in terms of reality.

Perception is reality. This DG is living proof of that.

[Dan King]

Matt Ward writes:
My example with Carnoustie spoke to the issue of how skill was minimized for the world' better players (e.g. Woods, Singh, Love, etc, etc) by preparing the course in such a manner that luck becomes the primary thrust of the event.

Please tell us, what makes the world' better players?

Is it ability to hit the ball? Success on a PGA Tour type setup course?

Help me out with something -- how many events of any type has Paul Lawrie won since that event? Also, let me know how many events Van de Velde has been a contender?

How many events have been setup similar to Carnoustie?

I was at Carnoustie is '99. I saw many of those world' better players play with the intelligence of 36 handicappers. Many of them could have won if they had used brains instead of brawn. Even Justin Leonard, if he had used a small portion of the brains of Paul Lawrie would have won the event. I remember almost every shot of Leonard's since I had a few quid on him.

Any course the causes Sergio Garcia to finish his round in tears is a perfectly fine setup in my book. Yes the players were unhappy with Carnoustie. It forced them out of their comfort level, forced them to occasionally have to think. They aren't used to working that hard.

You define better players by how they play a physical game. The PGA Tour has decided that they want to reward physical prowess, rather than mental. The players are almost never mentally challenged. Every course they play has similar setup, similar green speeds, similar sand consistency, etc... The Tour is moving toward playing all TPC courses, to a game where the only change for the players is that they fly into a different airport.

The PGA Tour plays a bastardized version of golf and my concern is that you'd like the rest of us to do the same. I'd much rather play a course similar to Carnoustie and its setup than some TPC course and its PGA Tour setup.

Let's also be a bit more clear about the Frenchman's success in the event -- it was tied to the fact that he one-putted more often than just about anyone else.

And you think putting shouldn't be part of golf?

I'm concerned that people like you want all of us to play this PGA Tour-version of golf. You want all courses to be more like Tour courses. It would make more sense for you to change, play your bastardize version on virtual golf courses or driving ranges, and leave golf courses to those of us that like both the physical and mental challenge.

Dan King

On the golf course, a man may be the dogged victim of inexorable fate, be struck down by an appalling stroke of tragedy, become the hero of unbelievable melodrama, or the clown in a side-splitting comedy.
  --Robert Tyre Jones

[Doug Siebert]

Matt,

I did understand you were talking about a lesser tour player versus Tiger, not me versus Tiger at Sawgrass.  Part of the problem of determining whether a course is fair or not by quality of the champions is that the quality of the champions can only be determined by looking at the champions at other tournaments.

Maybe the setup at Sawgrass was less fair and allowed lesser players to win since they aren't the same set that win at other venues.  Or maybe the TPC course is just so similar to other TPC courses that the same set of players inevitably wins.  Its kind of a self fulfilling prophecy in that way, since the tour has a lot of courses that look and are set up in the same way.

Obviously when a guy like Tiger wins it isn't because TPC courses favor him, but because he's the best.  But I'll bet he would have won his share at Sawgrass as well if they still played there.  I'm sure you'd acknowledge that certain types of courses favor certain players.  Those players whose skill set is tilted in favor of TPC style courses at the expense of being as competitive on links style courses will tend to win tournaments here and not show well in Europe.  Those whose skill set tilts in favor of links courses at the expense of TPC courses are better off staying in Europe.  Not everyone can be equally good at everything.  Homogeneous setups tend to make sure the same types of people win on them.

[Matt_Ward]

Chris B:

If you want an unfair hole or even course you should have played the original Stone Harbor Golf Course in Cape May, NJ with its famous rendition of Desmond Muirhead holes -- including the famed Jaws hole -- the par-3 7th.

Poorly designed holes, at least I think so, can be also ones that are unfair. Let's not play semantics -- the difference between the two escapes me.

Regarding Carnoustie and even St. George's -- the nature of the set-up was indeed geared towards the creation of predictable unfair outcomes. Just let me know how many more tournaments -- forget about majors -- do you think Lawrie and Ben Cutis will ever win again! The R&A set up two supreme tests of golf with an inane set-up -- pure and simple. Essentially IMHO, they (the R&A) took away skill and replaced it with a total perversion to luck and randomness. Great golf courses like the two aforementioned -- don't need to be bastardized -they provide sufficient clarity without the help of man thank you very much.

Chris -- the heart of golf is golf shots. It's important for golf to provide a means to identify what golf shots are required and then have the player provide them as called upon when playing. I don't believe for a New York minute that the set-up by the R&A for those two events was even borderline close to being proper. I mean what's next -- no fairway or one that is only one car lane wide?

Chris -- I certainly relish the opportunity play demanding tracks but there has to be a point to the "demand" otherwise it's futility pure and simple. You may not like the word "unfair" but it can happen when playing and clearly drawing that line is the test of any sponsoring group. How something is prepared will indeed play a major role in identifying what comes from it IMHO.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward said:

"If you want an unfair hole or even course you should have played the original Stone Harbor Golf Course in Cape May, NJ with its famous rendition of Desmond Muirhead holes -- including the famed Jaws hole -- the par-3 7th."

Matt;

The original Stone Harbor was radical architecture and a highly controversial golf course and #7 was the most radical and controversial of all.

But unfair? Not at all--not in my defintion anyway. What Stone Harbor had (has) is a lot of very slim margin for error golf holes and #7 happened to be the most slim margin for error hole of them all. And mostly "error" on that course means your ball gets wet and you pay large in score.

You said on another post on this thread that you like holes that have architectural clarity. Well #7 Stone Harbor could hardly have MORE CLARITY to it! That original green was like a two sided teardrop with water all around it right out there in front of you! It's pretty hard to miss noticing anything about it so it certainly had clarity but if you missed the green surface you're ball was wet.

So what's UNFAIR about that Matt? Or do you think then that a slim margin for error in golf architecture is unfair? The hole required a remarkably high level of SKILL to hit! I thought you liked golf courses that rewarded a high level of SKILL!

If you wanted to see a really slim margin for error course you should've seen Stone Harbor the year it opened when the fairways and greens had not yet matured and the course was FAST and really FIRM! Playing it back then successfully made you feel like you needed the touch and control and concentration of a brain surgeon!

[DPL11]

Matt,

Isn't crying about fair or unfair the problem with modern day golfers in general?

Would you find the bunkers at Oakmont years ago with their deep furrows unfair?

This attitude about fair and unfair is wussy-izing golf.

Doug

[DMoriarty]

Shivas.  

I find it interesting that you begin every post to me by telling me what I mean/meant, as opposed to accepting what I told you I mean/meant. One more time . . . My first statement to Matt was an absurd exaggeration for emphasis, posted as an offset to (IMO) Matt's absurd position regarding unfairness to better players.  Even if you didnt take it this way in my initial post, I have repeatedly explained my position.  I have an idea . . . why dont you address my real position?  Let me break it down for you.  

1.  The better player always has the advantage, no matter how quirky the course.

2.  No golfer ever gets the exact result they deserve, there are just too many random variables in golf.  These variables are what makes golf interesting from round to round, day to day, year to year.  They are what gives golf its character, its sense of excitement and adventure, what seperates the range from the course, what keeps golfers golfing and out of long drive competitions and bowling alleys.  They are sometimes what seperates great gca from good gca.  

I never said I wanted to reward skill less.  I did say that golf needs more random elements not less.  

 (

. . .
Let's get to the heart of this:  why do you NOT want to reward skill in golf more?

What do you mean "reward skill more?"  Skill is rewarded in golf.  But Matt wants to create a situation where his "better players" receive a much larger reward then they already receive.   He is entitled to his opinion, but is mistaken in pretending that this is a question of fairness.  
__________

Your zero sum analysis is absurd.  Since when is golf the equivalent of a no-carries-skins-game?  Moreover, since when is one golfer lucky and another unlucky over the long haul?   Do you have any scientific support for your Some Golfers Get All the Luck! hypothetical?  Perhaps the reason you have such an aversion to accepting random elements is that you think your opponents are too often "lucky," like the golfer in Dan's quote?
________________________

Shivas, regarding Seve, you've completely missed it again.   Most definitely Seve's recovery shots are very skillful.  But his shot prior to the revovery was most likely miserable, or Seve wouldnt need to recover.  In Matt's world where poor shots should be consistently punished, Seve doesnt deserve a chance at birdie.  Instead he deserves to be punished for hitting his prior shot 40 yds off line, or in a tree, or where ever.  

As I said above . . . "If a course consistently doled out the punishment Seve or you deserved on the former shot, you would be forced to take your medicine, instead of giving you or Seve a chance at a miracle."
 
Think if it this way . . . replace Seve's oft challenging circumstances with circumstances which are truly penal, like his ball in a lake or O.B.  Not even Seve can hit it on the green from the bottom of a lake.

So yes, Seve is lucky-- lucky that designers of the great courses didnt listen to you and Matt.  Lucky that they didnt believe in minimizing randomness and 'rub of the green.'

Matt would never give a poor driver like Seve a chance to salvage the hole.  He'd call it unfair if after Seve's poor drives, he had any chance at par or birdie at all.  

[Dan King]

Shivas writes:
Your example is a ruby red red herring.  Your buddy was not a scratch golfer because he couldn't get the ball in the hole, regardless of the reason.  Looking like a scratch and being a scratch are two different things.  I ain't missin' anything.  Golf is not just about hitting the ball.  I am not under than impression in any way, shape or form.

But in one of your first posts in this thread you posted:
Why do you have this idea in your head that golf should not be about being able to hit, putt and chip the ball better than the other guy as the means to winning?  I just don't get it.  I can't think of one single sport that doesn't separate the good player from the crummy player by their ability to perform the essential skills of the game.  Why should golf be different?  Why should success or failure hinge on factors other than the player's abilities?  

You and Matt are arguing that good shots should be rewarded and bad shots punished. My buddy would agree with you. I like the fact that sometimes good shots are punished and bad shots rewarded. This is what drives my friend crazy and ruins his game. If good shots were all rewarded, he'd beat me every time. He wouldn't have to think his way around a course, he could just hit away as if he was on the range. It's not so much that I like luck, it is I like how other's react to bad luck.

I've worked on hard on my attitude. I think the amount of good luck and bad luck evens out. If I hit a perfect putt that defies logic and doesn't go in the hole I try not to worry about it. Somewhere else I'll hit a poor putt that will go in. I think I'm a reasonably strong mental player. Despite my ugly swing and poor short game, I can play my buddy fairly evenly. While his physical game is much stronger than mine, my mental game is stronger. I'm not out looking for an edge, I just like that golf tests both parts of the game.

But you want the game to change so that all the bad breaks that I could count on to drive him crazy will be reduced. The more the game changes to eliminate lucky and unlucky breaks, the better his game will become. When spike marks were eliminated, his game improved. Consistent speeds on greens, elimination of grain, consistent sand hazards, elimination of punch bowls, all contributed to make his game magically better.

You let my friend go play PGA Tour-type bastardized version of golf and his game will be much better than playing golf.

Despite the fact that a game of punch-bowl greens would help my game, I'd never argue that we need nothing but punch-bowl greens. I don't want golf to be nothing but punch-bowls anymore than I want to see them eliminated.

Dan King

The least thing upset him on the links. He missed short putts because of the uproar of the butterflies in the adjoining meadows.
  --P.G. Wodehouse

[TEPaul]

Wow, I'm losing my touch, the ability to recognize distinctions and probably my sanity--I was reading a post of Dan King's and I thought it was David Moriarty's!

But it's really amusing to read all these posts about exact definitions of "fair" and "unfair" and whether it favors the good player or the poor player etc, etc.

Don't you all who've been discussing and debating these fine points and exact distinctions of "luck", "fairness", "unfairness"
realize that all this just falls into the realm of randomness and chance? And neither of those things favors or disfavors anyone?

Nature and it's randomness (chance, luck etc) has no idea whether a golfer has skill or no skill--and I'm more than certain she could care less!! But the "game mind" of Man cares desparately about those things!

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul, I agree with what you are saying, that's what I'm trying to educate Matt to understand

[TEPaul]

Doug:

Don't you bother about trying to educate Matt Ward. Matt's definitely no novice at all to golf course architecture. Some might tell Matt that he "doesn't get it" on here but that's really of not much matter. Matt looks at golf architecture in a different way--certainly a way I don't think I personally agree with but who really cares about that because, again Matt's been around and has his own outlook on the subject and what's wrong with that because after-all;

"Golf and its architecture is a great big thing and there really is room in it for everyone!"

Matt's a very valuable contributor on here--a guy with his own outlook and that outlook adds to the dynamic on this website.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
  David and David are having fun doing what they were trained to do. Split hairs down to the last cell wall. I'll never forget when David M brought up some point on the back nine about something I had casually remarked upon in the opening holes. You have to be careful what you say around these lawyer types, some day they'll bring it back to haunt you.

[Jonathan Cummings]

I was curious enough about Matt's 'the past winners at Sawgrass contention' (world class players overplaying TPC and getting past by second tier tour players) that I looked up the past winners.  Not sure I agree with you Matt as the TPC (throughout all years) with one or two exceptions (don't remember Mark Hayes at all!) seems to have enjoyed a pretty storied list of winners....

The Players Championship

2002 Craig Perks
2001 Tiger Woods
2000 Hal Sutton
1999 David Duval
1998 Justin Leonard
1997 Steve Elkington
1996 Fred Couples
1995 Lee Janzen
1994 Greg Norman
1993 Nick Price
1992 Davis Love III
1991 Steve Elkington
1990 Jodie Mudd
1989 Tom Kite
1988 Mark McCumber

Tournament Players Championship
1987 Sandy Lyle
1986 John Mahaffey
1985 Calvin Peete
1984 Fred Couples
1983 Hal Sutton
1982 Jerry Pate
1981 Raymond Floyd
1980 Lee Trevino
1979 Lanny Wadkins
1978 Jack Nicklaus
1977 Mark Hayes
1976 Jack Nicklaus
1975 Al Geiberger
1974 Jack Nicklaus

[ForkaB]

Shivas

When I read......

"Randomness, despite it's mythical, siren's song allure, is a mere fly on the elephant's ass of skill."

......I think I have found at least one angel on the head or your pin (or is that the pin of your head....)

But, what's this crap about Santa Claus?  Watch what you say about that dude, buddy!

[Matt_Ward]

Shivas:

Well said indeed!

Jonathan:

My good man -- you are lumping winners of the first few TPC's which were played at other venues besides the one at Sawgrass. My statement referred to winners at Sawgrass versus those at the TPC / Stadium being used now.

Nicklaus, if memory serves, won his first TPC at the Atlanta Tour site -- Atlanta CC. I also believe Jack's second TPC win came at Inverrary(sp?) in Florida. Al Geiberger's win came at Colonial in Fort Worth. When the original TPC format was brought into being the event moved for a time until settling down at Sawgrass.

TEPaul:

To be quite direct -- you are out in the deep left field seats if you thought the original 7th hole at Stone Harbor was indeed a fair hole. The concept by Muirhead was completely thrown on its head with an inane green and then further complicated in having bunkers set apart from the putting surface and located within bulkheaded wooden planks. If one played the hole from no more than 120 yards it would be one thing. But when you have a middle and back tees (max of 190 yards) that were set high in the air with a bulkheaded tee box the end result was horrific. Let me also add that if you include any serious wind you would only magnify the craziness even further.

Tom -- I played the original hole a half a dozen times and I agree for its novelty it was a definite 19th hole conversation item. However, although I can see giving Muirhead an "A" for originality the practicality of such a hole was simply dreadful stuff.

Tom -- read Doak's comments in "Confidential Guide" for his take on Stone Harbor. You also developed amnesia in mentioning that the green was diamond shaped and that if any approach had any pace when landing would invariably roll off any of the edges of the green into the H20.

I will say this though -- when world class professionals scream about the 17th at the TPC in Ponte Vedra -- I just laugh -- because if they played the original hole in Cape May they would have seen a hole that makes the one in Florida look like chop liver IMHO.

DPL11:

Yes, the bunkers with furrows at Oakmont were not only unfair but stupid. It's about tricking up the course even one step further. Isn't it enough that you have extremely deep bunkers -- some with church pews -- tough enough? The reputation for Oakmont didn't need such a contrivance / gimmick because the layout is sooooooo great without it.

Let me toss another one your way -- how bout the addition of a tree during the '79 Open at Inverness -- remember -- the Lon Hinkle tree on the 7th? What a silly overreaction to a situation that really was much ado about nothing.

[DPL11]

DPL11:

Yes, the bunkers with furrows at Oakmont were not only unfair but stupid. It's about tricking up the course even one step further. Isn't it enough that you have extremely deep bunkers -- some with church pews -- tough enough? The reputation for Oakmont didn't need such a contrivance / gimmick because the layout is sooooooo great without it.

Matt,

Why? I'm so sick of golfers thinking they should get a perfect lie in a hazzard.

Maybe people would think twice about aiming for a bunker when they can't get to a green. It's pretty sad when bunkers play easier than rough surrounding a green. If you think non-perfectly manicured hazzards are unfair, then don't hit it there.

Isn't that the idea of a hazzard?

Lets bring back skilled shot making to the game instead of this predictable, every course has to play exactly the same crap.

Doug

[Lou_Duran]

Shivas-

You must be a huge fan of Sand Hills.  I recall an individual finding a rabbit hole in the right short blow-out bunker on 17, and after numerous attempts to extricate himself the ball went nicely into his pocket.  I suppose that it is fine for match play, but not if you are a card and pencil type.

How about divots in the fairway.  Fair or unfair?  Perhaps to allow for more randomness or serendipity, these and ball marks on the greens should remain unrepaired.

As for me, golf is hard enough the way it is.  In the rare event when I find the area of the fairway I was aiming at, I fully expect to have a decent lie.  If I barely missed it and ended up in Tommy's footprint in a bunker or an Oakmont-like furrow, it would not make my golf experience richer.

[George Pazin]

Regarding Carnoustie and even St. George's -- the nature of the set-up was indeed geared towards the creation of predictable unfair outcomes. Just let me know how many more tournaments -- forget about majors -- do you think Lawrie and Ben Cutis will ever win again! The R&A set up two supreme tests of golf with an inane set-up -- pure and simple. Essentially IMHO, they (the R&A) took away skill and replaced it with a total perversion to luck and randomness. Great golf courses like the two aforementioned -- don't need to be bastardized -they provide sufficient clarity without the help of man thank you very much.

Chris -- the heart of golf is golf shots. It's important for golf to provide a means to identify what golf shots are required and then have the player provide them as called upon when playing. I don't believe for a New York minute that the set-up by the R&A for those two events was even borderline close to being proper. I mean what's next -- no fairway or one that is only one car lane wide?

So last year Love, Bjorn, Singh & Tiger were just luckier than the others, except Curtis was the luckiest of them all?

Your other examples aren't terrible, but this one is.

Just out of curiosity, Matt, what do suggest be done GCA-wise to limit "unfairness"? Should we smooth over every contour?

[Dan King]

Matt Ward writes:
the heart of golf is golf shots.

Are there others that believe this? I'd hope Matt would be all alone in his definition of golf, but maybe not.

Matt, why take up room on golf courses? Wouldn't there be better, less messy arenas for your bastardized version of golf? Golf courses are living entities that will never have the consistency you require. Why not play somewhere that supplies you with consistency. Leave those messy golf courses to those that enjoy the unknown.

Lou Duran writes:
How about divots in the fairway.  Fair or unfair?

Good news, assuming the divot is not attached, it is a loose impediment. A divot hole is a different beast. Suck it up and hit the ball out of the hole. Fairway has never meant, and should never mean, a perfect lie.

As for me, golf is hard enough the way it is.  In the rare event when I find the area of the fairway I was aiming at, I fully expect to have a decent lie.

Maybe the game should change so that if you hit it in the fairway, you get to tee it up. Why bother with nasty inconsistent grass? Heck, most driving ranges aren't on grass anymore anyway, maybe you should get to bring along your little bit of astroturf. It's hardly fair you practice off astroturf and tees but then have to hit off nasty, inconsistent grass.

Easier still, keep the grasses off the fairway. Why not convert all fairways to astroturf. It would make the whole experience fairer and make maintenance much easier.

If I barely missed it and ended up in Tommy's footprint in a bunker or an Oakmont-like furrow, it would not make my golf experience richer.

But it might make the experience richer for the rest of us. We might enjoy seeing you try to extract yourself from Tommy's footprint. Stop being so selfish and let us enjoy ourselves. Remember how much fun you guys had watching Shivas try to get his ball out of the rabbit hole?
 
Dan King

However unlucky you may be, it really is not fair to expect your adversary's grief for your undeserved misfortunes to be as poignant as your own.
  --Horace Hutchinson  (Hints on Golf)

[Dan King]

Matt Ward writes:
Just check the names of the player who won at Sawgrass when the event was there and compare it to the names of the winners at TPC / Stadium.

1974 Jack Nicklaus Atlanta CC
1975 Al Geiberger Colonial CC
1976 Jack Nicklaus Inverrary G&CC
1977 Mark Hayes Sawgrass CC
1978 Jack Nicklaus Sawgrass CC
1979 Lanny Wadkins Sawgrass CC
1980 Lee Trevino Sawgrass CC
1981 Raymond Floyd Sawgrass CC
TPC: 1982: Jerry Pate, 1983: Hal Sutton, 1984: Fred Couples, 1985: Calvin Peete, 1986: John Mahaffey, 1987: Sandy Lyle, 1988: Mark McCumber, 1989: Tom Kite, 1990: Jodie Mudd, etc...

I see what you mean. Nicklaus, Wadkins, Trevino and Floyd. What a foursome of hacks. How did they ever get into a list of outstanding winners such as Pate, Peete, Mahaffey and Mudd?

Dan King

If you birdie the 18th, do you get a free game?
 --John Mahaffey (on TPC at Sawgrass)

[Matt_Ward]

DPL11:

Where did I say I have to HAVE a perfect lie in a bunker. You're confusing what you w-r-o-t-e with what I a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y said. Please re-read to refresh your memory.

I am an unbashed fan of Oakmont -- I see it as being one of the top five courses in the USA. A course of that stature doesn't need to stoop to the level of g-o-t-c-h-a golf with some infantile contraption like furrows.

I don't doubt that bunkers have become less of a factor because of the predictability issues but there's other ways to enhance their placement -- furrows are not one of them.

By the way you tap danced around my example -- do you believe it was appropriate for the USGA to "add" a tree to a US Open course after the players had arrived at the site? In my mind that's another over-the-top element that really was unnecessary and showed how foolish the USGA was.
 
George P:

I never said luck / randomness / rub-of-the-green -- call it what you may has NO ROLE in the playing of the game. Let me ask you something and I'd appreciate a straight answer -- do you actually think the set-up of Carnoustie / St. George's was appropriate to what they were trying to accomplish. Isn't the purpose of the event to identify the "best" golfer -- not the most fortunate?

George -- I'll bet you that Mr. Curtis will go down in history beyond the likes of Jack Fleck or even Sam Parks. Look, I give the young man credit -- he made the most out of his 15 minutes of fame.

Dan King:

Please hep me stop laughing with all your bluster about how people like me (shivas too) have advocated c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e and unfettered fairness in every situation when playing golf. Never said it.

Nice try Dan on throwing forward your "spin." Maybe you can help out George at 1600 Penn Ave.

The heart of golf is about golf shots IMHO -- the ability (see the preceding word) to shape shots as called for (high / low; left-to-right; right-to-left, run-up, etc, etc) on a course. The supreme courses make it special by challenging the player to produce from the 1st tee to the 18th green through a series of challenges that takes in the fullest array of obstacles that the player must overcome. The great courses provide clarity to the player in defining what is and what is not a well executed shot. Those where randomness is the chief element when playing you can keep and knock yourself out to play.

 

[George Pazin]

Matt -

I think the R&A went over the top at Carnoustie, but I think RSG was just about as good as it gets. 4 top players on the leaderboard showed that the course rewarded good play & good thinking. Curtis played the best & won - accept it.

You claim to believe in rub of the green as a concept, but then you reject it every time it happens. How can any reasonable person conclude that you do indeed believe in it? I think that is a large part of the disagreement between you and Dave M. He is rejecting your statement that you accept it because you have not shown one single instance of it.

Dave's original statement was certainly a bit strong, in that it almost implied that he was looking for absolutely random results from shots played. I don't think he is, or else why would he even be interested in any sort of design - he'd just be out in some park whacking the ball around in haphazard fashion, delighting in the random bounce of the ball.

What he appears to be advocating instead is that the pursuit of absolute fairness is what is driving much of the charm and interest out of the game & many modern designs.

Please hep me stop laughing with all your bluster about how people like me (shivas too) have advocated c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e and unfettered fairness in every situation when playing golf. Never said it.

Nice try Dan on throwing forward your "spin." Maybe you can help out George at 1600 Penn Ave.

Actions speak volumes lourder than words, Matt. You can say all you want that you are not in pursuit of abolute fairness and that you accept rub of the green, but when you reject things like Curtis winning at RSG you show your true colors. You are the true spin master on the site. You speak in nicely quotable sound bites, but your positions never reflect these sound bites.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()