Tom Simpson wrote that the architect "…must, so far as is possible, disguise his purpose. Suggestio falsi is never permissible, but suppressio veri all the world recognises as justifiable...Any feature that acts as a lighthouse to define a channel or one that lends assistance in judging distance, is definitely to be deplored."

I can understand the distinction in law, but am unsure of it in golf!  My question is, can someone provide some contrasts illustrating suggestio falsi and suppressio veri?

Would a hidden hazard count as suggestio falsi? Would yardage books and 150-yard posts count as suppressio veri?

What about false fronts?  What about open space behind the green? I like these sleights of hand, but if they actively deceive the golfer, then are those suggestio falsi, and therefore unacceptable? Or have I gotten it wrong?

Do you agree that suggestio falsi should be avoided at all costs?

It seems like, today, golf course designers have embraced the antithesis of Simpson: Today, it seems like our maverick architects have embraced suggestio falsi, yet suppressio veri has died!

Mark

I'm just pleased I have a real-world example of the worth of studying Latin - my daughter pooh-poohed me just last night about exactly this.

Suggestio falsi golf holes are rarely any fun - because the falsi is really falsi only once.  That first time pisses one off, the remaining plays are boring, requiring too much caution - in general that is.  I can see how Tom might want to make certain exceptions, because done well they could make for strategic fun... but in general all they serve to do is piss golfers off.

Suppressio veri holes, however, seem to me to be what the game should be all about.  I really do believe that the more one has to figure out the best way to play a golf hole - and the less easy that is - the more fun it is.  This is NOT an easy trick to pull off - most experienced golfers can figure out the most effective way to play a hole pretty darn quickly - so when one finds a hole with true suppresio veri and thus has one scratching his head, that hole is to be treasured.

TH

This is the first time I've encountered these terms--does Simpson provide more context?

I remember interviewing Johnny Miller a few years ago, and him mentioning that he had never figured out how to the play the tenth at Shinnecock Hills. Selecting the driver and banging it down to the base of the hill presented difficulties in controlling spin for the uphill wedge approach, while laying back with an iron often involved a downhill lie to an elevated green.

I don't know if this is suppressio veri (I don't have a clear grasp of the definitions yet) but it's what came to mind....  

Tom H.: Sure, I get the distinction (studied Latin for six years in h.s. and college), but am grappling with how this translates into architectural features... Thanks!

Tom Dunne et al (Latin -- hahaha!),

Here's a link to an article on TOC that may help -- search the page for "veri" for the reference:
http://www.eigca.org/articles8.php

BTW, the 18th approach at Durban -- if you haven't driven the green and therefore actually have one -- might be a good example of suppressio veri.  It played into the wind for me, so I had a second shot the caddie insisted was 85 meters to the flag.

It looked so much closer!  And the call clearly was for a knockdown shot, but I got to thinking, "Wait, if I bring it in low, the clubhouse will shield it from the wind, and I might hit the clubhouse!"

So I just took a little more club and hit an American-style wedge, with absolutely no conviction other than, "please, wind, knock it down!"

Here's a pic of the approach from Philip's post:


Mark

Tom,

I would call that suggestio falsi, given Mackenzie's intent to deceive, no?

"Suppressio veri" use of bunkers might be, for example, the total absence of bunkers that offer aiming points or frame the hole in a way to aid the golfer.

The Mackenzie example is why I'm not sure I would agree with Simpson's comment.  I often find visual deception attractive!

Mark

Huck


You are right!  Bookmark this for posterity.

Case in point, your Hono(u)r:  4th at Cypress Point

Tee shot, pure Suggesty Falsie--looks like it's impossible not to drive into a bunker, but in fact, unless you are Sean Arble or Philip Gawith, you'll never hit it that far, even in your dreams.

Second shot, classic Suppressy il Trutho.  Looks pretty flat, but there is a huge right to left slope to the green.

As you rightly say, each of these illusions only work once, if they work at all.  If archies really want to use up a lot of their intellectual energy and capital designing for the one-night standers, shame on them.  Both of these concepts are simplistic and arid ones.  Great golf invites strategy from the player, not needless confusion.  It keeps on giving, round after round after round.  Camouflage is a mere bagatelle whose interest and value diminishes every time you play the hole.

Rich,

Let me offer a partial dissent. I think there is a lasting effect to both suggestio falsi and suppressio veri: the golfer must continually remind himself not to trust his eyes!

I can think of cases where you are right on suggestio falsi, namely that the sleight of eye is transparent after the first experience.

But I think that's harder to accomplish on suppressio veri.  Time and again, your sensory input does not jibe with what your experience tells you must be true!

And doesn't this in part explain the lasting charm of TOC, and the premium that ANGC places upon experience in The Masters?

Mark

Good general points, Mark.  I do tend to hyperbolize....

Specifically, I think that TOC is mostly Suppressio Veri--not much Suggesto Falsi that I can remember.  From what I've seen on TV, Augusta seems to be the opposite, which is why I like it better (theoretically, of course).

Huck

Only way to par 8 at PD (in my 4 rounds).

Dead top your tee shot into the grunge about 70 yards in front of the tee.  Whack a 3-wood out of there into the back right bunker (thank god for fast and firm....).  Sand shot to 15 feet above a back left pin.  Sink the putt.

I call it supressio falsi.

... but in any case I do think Doak is suppressing a veri on that hole that I have yet to find.  And to me that's a good thing.

Tom and Rich,

Now we're getting somewhere!  Namely the ancient Roman Catholic concept of enigmate: "through a glass darkly."

I very much like this idea that a hole contains an essential truth, but the architect must mask it so as to make the hole more interesting.

The "truth" in question here is just the "best" way to play a hole.  The fun lies in trying to figure out what that is, so Simpson's belief in deception is well placed.

And suggestio falsi therefore may, more often than not, be a "low" form of obfuscation, whereas suppressio veri demands the golfer fall back on the "faith" of his experience, because his eyes are not as easily deceived by falsi as veri.  He must tell himself his eyes deceive him, and let go of the visual impression.

And if the hole plays differently depending on conditions, then the weather itself provides suppressio veri, too!

Leading one to the conclusion that the best holes may not have one "truth," i.e., one and only one way to play, and that suppressio veri might in fact be a dominant strategy.

Blah blah blah...put simply, minimalism, when used to suppress the truth -- i.e., not minimalism for its own sake (sui generis!) -- is a high-form of design.

Mark

(This discussion would be so much better over pints...don't suppose any of you want to drop by?  I'm heading over to Maryland's Eastern Shore -- beer's on me.)

One of the "veri" cool things about number 8 is that you must disavow yourself of notions regarding the "correct" way to play a dogleg.

Harsh experience teaches you the play is not to cut the corner and play down the right side but rather to play out to the left, and that the penalty in extra distance more than offsets the risk of going right and the difficult angle of approach given the green siting.

Definitely a suppressio veri hole, IMHLO (in my humble Latin opinion).

Now, I also love 17, but now I wonder if that's a case of suggestio falsi.  Working off memory here, but doesn't it visually trick you into trying to play down the right side, when that route brings the greenside Slope of Doom into play?

Mark

"Suppressio Veri" is not dead, but sadly going away.  When a designer says they want the player to stand on the tee and be able to figure out how to play the hole from there -- something I've heard from people as diverse as Robert Trent Jones Sr. and Mark Parsinen -- well, Tom Simpson would dismiss them.  Minimalism is all about "suppressio veri" but the more bunkers we put out there, the more we get away from it.

This quote is so nice let's print it twice!

Tom Doak,

Is this what you teach all those "Jordan Walls" out there? The twin principles of:
1. Establish the "truth" of the hole;
2. Mask this truth through the "high" form of deception?

I think this is the cure for golf-course ennui!  Suppressio veri doesn't require the architect to resort to gimmicks or trickery to mask the best way to play a hole, and yet it still offers a powerful puzzle.  That makes for fun.

Walker Percy believed the modern writer had to hide the truth from his readers.  He couldn't simply speak truth to them because in today's post-modern cynical world they'd just tune out.  So he had to trick them into seeing the truth -- in fact, this would get them to actively root it out and discover it for themselves. They'd "own" it.

Strong contrast to predominant approach today in golf arch.

Mark