[Mike_Cirba]

Lou,

Good to hear from you!  I trust you enjoyed the rest of your trip.

For the record, I never said that Texas Star is a "great" course, just a good, fun, and daring one, and I hated that friggin' tree on the 9th.  

"Fatalistic" is a good term to describe the philosophy of the earliest practicioners of the game, but they seemed to find it enjoyable, nonetheless.  Another good term you've used is "reasonable chance at success", but I would ask you to define success.  Should every shot be "holeable"?  Or, is finding the best place to miss part of the strategy of the game?

On the other hand, hearing Tom Paul describe the scene at Pebble that day I have to admit that the threshold of "unfairness" was crossed.

So let me add this addendum.  A tee location or hole location can possibly be unfair if there is not a "reasonable chance of success".  I find it tougher to believe that any golf hole in itself can be unfair, however.  Fair enough?

I just find the term bandied about much too frequently, and I think that it has led to a certain narrow, limiting, and stereotypical sameness in many modern golf courses.  

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- I know the 14th very well and I understand how it is possible to have both the pin and green speed to make the putting close to impossible. I've actually seen the antithesis where a ball rolling down that slope has stopped in the middle. I will concede that with the circumstances you've presented it was unfair. But the combo of some inexperienced or sadistic greenskeeper and greenspeed, mostly made the pin placement dumb.

But the justification of my post was geared more to those that felt the set-up at this years open was unfair.

I couldn't tell from the TV but with all the talk about how little undulation there is on the Black's greens, how was there an unfair pin? Again greenspeed is probably what caused the perception of unfair, but I still hold to the premise if all the golfers have to play it that way unfair translates, to me, as whining about difficulty.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Cirba - Did you play Texas Star and not even call me when in town?  I understand your concept about looking for challenge as life gets softer, but I think the small percentage that does that goes mountain climbing or skydiving, not play more strategic golf!  As RC points out, the more you have, the more you complain, or in the corollary, the less you have to complain about, the more you complain about the things you do have to complain about.  Anyway, that's my take on human nature.....

Lou - I recall the club telling me that too many players took OB out of play by going left.  The mounds in front of the green keep players from getting on from over in the tree line.  Then, the right seemed too attractive, but a bunker lip would have been unfair, IMHO, so I opted for some gentle choclate drop mounds - the forgotten feature of golf design - to guard the inside corner.  I have hit punch shots off them, but you can get a downhill lie and not get to the green.  So, in my mind, you miss the fairway and get about a 50% chance of recovery.  That's silly?

Is it wrong to favor a particular shot pattern, as Brian points out, on a given hole, provided the favored patterns are more or less balanced out over 18 holes?  Or do we have to look at every shot and take down enough trees, and place hazards only to the sides and backs so shot patterns of all types have an equal chance of getting to the green on every hole?

If golfers demand that every one of THEIR shots be allowed easy access to every green, rather than the majority of all players shots, then you get pretty bland architecture.  In essence, thay pretty much happens at most new CCFAD's, don't you think?

PS - Don't go play my redo of Indian Creek if you don't like choclate drops.  I have used them a few times there!\

Matt - Actually, I like at least one long par per course with a smallish green.  Otherwise, it gets formulaic, with big greens for long shots, etc.  But, as you say, ythe design must leave a bail out area somewhere, usually one side, or follow Thomas' fairgreen concept behind the green on a long par 4 so that a shot that goes just over has an easy chip or putt back, while missing to the sides is punished.  The other benefit of using a small green on the longest par 4 is that it challenges mid to long iron play for the scratch player, and is also suitable for the high handicapper to reach with a wedge in three shots.  An equalizer of sorts.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

The other example I was going to cite was a pin position that would not hold the ball on the slope, in other words, the ball either went into the hole on its way up or back down, but it wouldn't/couldn't come to rest within ten feet or so of the cup

Any ball putted from above or from the side either went in (rare), or went well below the pin, only to start the bean bag putting exercise all over again.

That's unfair

[corey miller]

Once a year my club has a tournament using all the "unfair" pin placements on all 18 holes.  Instead of a regular size hole a much (3-4 times) larger hole is cut out.  It is a real blast and is still quite a nerve racking putting experience.  

[TEPaul]

a clay man:

I have a question for you. I have no idea who set that pin on #14 at Pebble that time--some asst super I guess. But let's just say he did that again another time or two and got fired for it? Would you consider that unfair?

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- If he was shown the error of his ways and continued the action his firing would be justified.

Here's something that just came to mind reading an upper post, but before I say (ok write) it I will ask.

 Besides the buried elephant what feature on/around that green is unique to PB?

From what I hear, on Halloween, here at Pinon Hills, they have what's known as Monster Day. All the pins are put in ridiculous spots and everyone seems to remember it as being quite fun.

Isn't it standard to set-up pin placements, for tournaments, in a six six six configuration. Where six are easy, six are medium and six are hard?

[Lou Duran]

MC,

Thank you for correcting the record re: Texas Star.  I still believe that there are some unfair golf holes, and I know that there is a lot of bad design.  Sometimes the unfairness is due to poor maintenance practices or a lack of consideration given to setting up the course.   Another example at Olympic is the fairway on the 17th hole.  If the course is firm and the hole is played as a par 4 (let's not get into the what is par argument), I think that it is impossible to hit the ball long enough and hold it in the fairway.  Therefore, in my book, it is an unfair hole under those conditions.

My trip was fantastic.  The only caveat is that it may set too high a standard for future excursions, but that was a risk well worth taking.  As someone previously stated on this site, maybe Mr. Weiman or Mr. Mucci, so many great courses to play, so little time.  I do so look forward to SC in September.

Brian,

I think that any time you force the player to hit a sharply angular shot of the tee it is bad design.  In my opinion, the only time you should be guaranteed a good lie, stance, and several options is off the tee.   I like a variety of angles and directions on the doglegs, but I want them out far enough to give me some real options.  Trees near the tee boxes are a particular pet peeve of mine.  In fact, as I am seeing more of the better courses, I tend to understand where such tree radicals such as Redanman are coming from.

Jeff,

My comments about the mounds are strictly within the context of the "double indemnity" notion you floated.  GSW # 15 is an extremely hard driving hole as the wind pushes you toward the townhomes OB left.  The OB, huge oak and pecan trees on both sides of the fairway, and the wiry common bermuda rough always provided ample defense to the hole.  The mounds often serve as a double penalty, in that you can't sometimes punch over them while still keeping the ball under the branches.  In effect, the mounds have made what was formerly an occasional recovery into a virtual impossibility.  I have no problems with chocolate drops or mounding as long as they are not used as the main feature, and are built as much to prevent a ball from going into trash as to penalize the errant shot.   I personally like what you and John did on the front nine at Sqaw Valley.  The rather unexciting land needed the heavy mounding and I think that it is an extremely good course for its clientele.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Lou,

Your point is taken.  Let me ask about your tee shot comments.....do you think a forced fade or draw off the tee is unfair, if gentle, and if enough fairway exists on the wide side to allow a straight shot or opposite pattern shot to get somewhere in the fairway?  

[Lou Duran]

Jeff,

I think that it is good architecture which entices the player to form a shot in order to reach a more favorable position.  I don't have a problem with a rather sharp dogleg right such as GSW #15 into a prevailing or cross wind which tends to push the ball to the OB (right).  Just don't take away my only chance for recovery if I err a little to the left (mounds in front of the green), or to the right (mounds at the turn of the dogleg.  As I stated earlier, the trees, wind, and rough offer a strong enough defense.

Scarlet #1 and #18 are both good sharp dogleg holes with considerable penalties if you drive it straight through the dogleg or shape it too much (cut on 1, hook on 18).  I don't particularly care for #3 at Colonial, though I do like #12.  Your courses are typically "comfortable" off the tee, while offering a lot of variety.  Some of Plummer's work relied quite a bit on trees to turn the hole.  I prefer my trees more on the periphery.  Challenge me to shape the ball, but give me enough room to do it.

[Mark_Fine]

Maybe it would be easier to define what "fair" is because I still don't understand the definition of "unfair"?  Can someone define fair when it comes to course design?  I doubt anyone can.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Fine,

What's fair or unfair is usually determined or defined in the context of how it integrates with one's golf game.

What is called unfair by one, may be deemed extraorinarily fair by another.

I don't know if there are many absolutes.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I played Texas Star about 3 years ago, prior to your active participation here on GCA.  Otherwise, I'd have been certain to look you up.

Also; GREAT to hear that you've designed a hole that my friend Lou Duran believes is "unfair".  

I have a strong hunch that I'd enjoy it, and I always knew that you were an architect who took chances.  

Lou,

I'm really pleased to hear that the rest of your trip worked out so well.  It was really enjoyable to finally meet you.    

[Jeff_Lewis]

Didn't Matt Cohn hit the nail on the head? Unfair means that good and bad are not distinguished from each other? A 500 yard carry is unfair because it places unreasonable demands on all. The best golfer in the world and the worst would all hit 3 5 7, etc off the tee. The best golf courses do the best job of distinguishing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()