Unfairness in design

[Andy Troeger]

David,
   While you seem just as interested in taking shots at Matt as discussing the topic, your point against #12 is well taken. That's why most players take it over the bunker to the widest portion of the green, its an easier shot to physically execute, and if they don't then they're probably in a bunker as opposed to the creek. If you go at the Sunday pin location you'd better be able to figure out the wind and hit the shot, or be Fred Couples.
   I'm not trying to say that the golfer should be able to fire at every pin and hit it to a foot if they hit the correct shot. But I prefer courses where the player has a chance to hit a shot somewhere and have a chance of executing it. There's always some form of luck involved in golf, my point is just that the better holes should give the player who executes a good shot a better chance of making a good score than one who hits a mediocre or bad one. #12 is a great hole for the tournament because most pros can hit the shot over the bunker, but not that many can successfully hit to the right pin (or at least most don't try to). Sure, some might push the shot and get lucky, but most do not.

[Jason Blasberg]

When 2 feet counts the same on the card as 320 yards, I don't believe distance could ever impact fairness.

Certain hole locations where it is impossible to stop a putt within 5 feet of the hole unless it goes in would be the closest thing that could rise to "unfair."  The 18th at Olympic in the US Open comes to mind, however, so long as the entire field plays the same conditions it may be ridiculous and fair to all.  One problem that is likely "unfair" in relation to the entire field is a severe pin placement in sunny and windy conditions so that as the day goes on the pin placement becomes more and more difficult.  The 7th at Shinnecock on Sunday '04 was as close to unfair in that respect as I've seen.  

[Andy Troeger]

David,
   I don't say eliminate those things, I just don't think GCA should try to aim for making them more prevelent than necessary. Good and bad bounces are a part of every shot, and a part of the changing conditions of every course in the world...I just prefer that the golfer has as much chance as possible to affect the outcome of the shot (both with actual physical execution and mental decision making). We might just agree to disagree on that point. Realize though that I don't mean to say that EVERY shot needs to have reflective result...that perfection doesn't happen in any facet of life...I just don't think golf should be a crapshoot where you hit it up there somewhere and hope for the best.

   I agree the worse player never has a "better" chance. But I think there are holes where they have basically the "same" chance. As with that hole, all of the about 15 shots I saw went in the water, including two single-digit handicappers, some 10-20, and some higher. Everything ended up in the same place...the drop area. That's what I think is frustrating.

[George Pazin]

Has anyone on this board - or anywhere else - ever indicated a desire to see bad bounces/rub of the green be the dominant feature of any course, anywhere?

[A_Clay_Man]

   I don't say eliminate those things, I just don't think GCA should try to aim for making them more prevelent than necessary.


I just prefer that the golfer has as much chance as possible to affect the outcome of the shot (both with actual physical execution and mental decision making).

Andy, I believe what we have here are two very diverse opinions on what makes the game fun, challenging and alluring, to different types of individuals.
 
I much prefer believing in the golf gods, mostly because I have no idea until the ball comes to rest if the move I put on it, was the right move. It should be added, that I do often try to miss, perfectly.

 This quote from Jim Kennedy, on another thread is poinent.

Bringing more players to the game ensures the survival of the DFs and the diversity of playing fields that they bring to the equation.

[Brent Hutto]

I agree the worse player never has a "better" chance. But I think there are holes where they have basically the "same" chance. As with that hole, all of the about 15 shots I saw went in the water, including two single-digit handicappers, some 10-20, and some higher. Everything ended up in the same place...the drop area. That's what I think is frustrating.

And after the drop..

Who got down in two, who got down in three, who put another ball out of play?

[George Pazin]

George, noone ever says that.  But many people do say lets eliminate unpredictability.   Our great old courses are far more unpredictable, and many of our new blah ones are more predictable.  Our response?  More predictability.  Funny how that works.

Right you are! Yet, everytime someone says it's best to maintain some element of unpredictability, it gets immediately translated into "You want everything determined by luck!"

True, the game would not be much fun if everything were determined by chance, unpredictable bounces, etc. But who said anything remotely approaching this? Maintaining an element of chance is not at all the same thing.

[Andy Troeger]

David,
   I understand your point, although I'm not completely convinced, since it seems like every hole in golf has some level of unpredictability due to ever-changing conditions. Add that to the unpredictability in my golf swing and I think that's enough (for me) without adding it in on purpose. I think Shivas had four good examples of this, but you've already nit-picked half his list, so that's going to continue going around in circles.

Brent,
   The drop area is on the island on that hole, so its not much of a shot. Two 5's and two 6's if I remember right, and no, it wasn't the two single-digits who made the 5's.

Adam,
   You're very right, there are many reasons people enjoy this wonderful game (and that's partially why it can be discussed here). It obviously would be terribly boring if everybody thought the same way. Interestingly enough, when I try to teach my high school girls golf team one of the first things I stress is that there's nothing wrong with a good miss. However...after four years I'm finding that the more good shots and the fewer misses they have (good and bad), the more times we win

George,
   I don't think anybody here is saying that they want everything determined by luck, and I don't think anybody is saying they want no element of unpredictability (I'm not, although it sounds like maybe I'm not saying it very well). Luck and skill are part of the game...however some people prefer more of the game to be determined by skill and others by the unpredicability of the golf course.

[Tags:]

Tags: