Mike's thread about bunker depths got me thinking that it might be worth sharing an excerpt from our book Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards.  

If I had someone read one thing in our book, this might be it.  For those of you who don't have our book, I hope you find this passage enjoyable (and if nothing else thought provoking).  

The Concept of Fairness

The modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of golf. A pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed booklet of over 150-pages is required to explain the game. Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered.  Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed to making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” disadvantage. This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds. Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes—one good and one bad. That would just not be fair—or would it?

Have golf architects and the clients they work with forgotten what golf is really all about? The game was never meant to emulate physics, where every action equates to an equal and opposite reaction. As with life, golf is expected to have ups and downs. Some days a golfer might do everything right, and yet the result still turns out bad. Other times, a lucky bounce or carom might lead to good fortune even when the swing and all its results should have led to an awful mess. Golf can teach us many lessons about life, but only if we allow skill, luck, and fate all to remain part of the game.

If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges will remain? Aren’t those bumps in the road of life just like the hazards of golf? In many ways it is the triumph of overcoming setbacks that keeps us energized. Were it not for ordeals, it would only be a matter of time until we would become complacent and our lives (or rounds) filled with boredom.

When we think of “fairness,” we are reminded of a situation that occurred at The Old Course at St. Andrews. Walking up the 18th fairway after hitting our final tee shots, one member of our group cringed at the site of his ball lying in the middle of Grannie Clark’s Wynd, a macadam road that crosses the 1st and 18th fairways. The thought crossed his mind, “Here we are playing the grandest of all golf courses and this perfectly struck drive on the final hole has found a lone stretch of rockhard road in the center of the fairway. What a bad break. What poor luck to deserve such an unfair fate.” You see, in Scotland, and especially on The Old Course, you still play it as it lies, and this little macadam path is considered an integral part of the golf course. There is no free drop to gain relief. No automatic allowance that says you can place the ball back on forgiving turf to play your next stroke. No, you are stuck with the situation and you deal with it the best you can.

As the golfer prepared to play his shot from the tightest of lies, one couldn’t help but notice the spectators watching his misfortune from the fence rail along the hole. As his club swept toward the ball and picked it cleanly off the hard dark surface there was a sense of elation as it rose quickly and somehow managed to scurry up onto the green surface, coming to rest about 30 feet from the flagstick.

The golfer’s walk to the green was neither one he nor his playing partners would ever forget. Every one of the on-lookers had applauded the shot. Two putts later, the golfer scored one of the greatest pars, and most memorable moments of his golfing career. And all thanks to what looked like a dire and “unfair” circumstance.

But that is golf. Many of the elements that add so much richness to the game may be lost in our pursuit of “fairness.” There is too much at stake. The concept of fairness must be tempered at all cost.
 

Mark,

Agreed that we seem to forget that pulling off the difficult shot is a great moment, in favor of the best moment of the day being toting up the score, and perhaps (if we ignore our occaisional moving of the ball from difficult lies, self made putt concessions, and occaisional other rules transgressions (who walks back to the tee for an OB on a busy public course?  They would lynch you.) and perhaps, seeing a personal best in the last box.

The move towards fairness isn't new.  In fact, I think the complaining about fairness probably started somewhere the first day the first course opened......

Reading all books previous to your fine effort yields nuggets along the same line.  It just seems that every new fairness movement - in this case maintaining bunkers to play as easily as fairways, strikes us old timers as the last straw.  There will be many more straws to come, I assure you.

Great stuff, Mark. Damn, now I got to go buy your book.

The misuse of the concept of "fairness" goes even deeper, I think. When applied to golf courses, it represents  a fundamental confusion of categories, as they used to say in my philosophy seminars. If I had stood up and said the 12th at Course A is an "unfair" hole, they would have flunked me on the spot. And rightfully so.

Why? Because fairness is, essentially, a procedural concept. It is used correctly when applied to things like deals, trials, votes, elections, or competitions.

Things like bicycles, hamburgers and golf courses aren't fair or unfair. They just are. Though they can be used by human actors in unfair ways.

If you and I compete over the same course, then our competition is - by definition - fair. The course is just there. We faced the same obstacles, one managed them better than the other, and he won.

If, as at Shinnie a couple of years ago, some competitors played on watered greens and others played on dry greens, then that competition was unfair. The golf course had nothing to do with the lack of fairness.

I think the temptation to use concepts like fairness or equity comes from a reluctance to say what people really mean. What people are really trying to express is that certain features of the course were too hard or too easy. Recoveries from a bunker may be hard, impossible, dispiriting, easy, deceptive or whatever. The penalty for missing a shot may be severe or non-existant. But saying that a feature is unfair is simply avoiding the work of articulating something more precise.

The bottom line is that no combination of physical attibutes of an architectural feature make it "fair" or "unfair". Competitions played on those features can be fair or unfair. But not the features themselves.  

Bob  

Jim -

The two are hard to separate. It was because of the hand of man that the competitors faced different playing conditions at Shinnie that year.

But what if it had rained at noon that day? It would mean the conditions of competition were different for different players. But there's nothing unfair about that. No human actor was involved to create the different conditions. Wind, rain, drought are natural to any course and are rub of the green.

Bob

Mark,

I generally agree with what you are suggesting (I think).  In life or golf, no one should expect cosmic justice in an imperfect world, yet many do.   Further, they then demand all sorts of things to either guarantee it or "be made whole" when they feel slighted.

On the other hand, if the results of well struck and thought out shots are serendipitous, then golf is no longer a sporting game of skill.  One might as well go out to a place of beauty and just flip a coin for a couple of hours and save the green fee.

Golf is played on irregular surfaces and all sorts of things affect the flight and direction of the ball.  In my opinion, conditioning of the course should result in good shots ending up in good lies or positions most of the time.  One should not have to consider the probability of ending up in a divot on the preferred side of the fairway.  If one hits a bird or lands in an  occasional divot, it is just a rub of the green and undeserving of pity.

I have not read your book, but when it comes to bunkers, I do believe some consideration should be given to their size,  shape, and location in relation to the hole's characteristics.  On a long, tight hole, I think a fairway bunker should be larger, shallower, and maintained with relatively little sand.  Likewise, greenside bunkers on holes requiring long approach shots should be less demanding.  This doesn't mean that all short holes should only have deep, difficult bunkers and long ones the opposite, but an overall balance is more to my liking.  I do enjoy a few diffiicult, out-of-the-norm holes in my round.  Whether this is an issue of fairness, I'll let others decide.

This reminds me of an ongoing situation at a private club for which I did a large bunker project.  The project has been done for a year and the club has utilized the new bunkers for the past season, I am here in the northeast so our season is essentially done.  In September this year I received a letter from the club discussing a few concerns thay have with the bunkers, but what certainly caught my attention was the following:

"The issues we are having is related to bunkers that are not 'dished' and where the contour or shape of the bunkers are unfriendly and in fact unfair for a recovery shot to reach the green"

"We did not want to inhibit your styling or locations of the bunkers, we only wanted to dictate, that for the money we spent, they would be as playable and friendly as possible"

These comments come from a small group of members who were not on the planning, design or construction committee.

Those who don't have Mark's and Forrest's book should obtain it.  It's a worthwhile addition to your golf architecture library.

Mark,

As the golfing demographic changed the concept of fairness took root and flourished.

A catalyst for its fourishing has been the introduction of democracy in club governance.

Every special interest group wants its purpose/agenda served, and "fairness" is high up on the list.

You may recall my thread on buffers fronting hazards.
These are nothing more than a concession to the concept of "fairness"

Golf today, isn't what it was, in many ways, and surely, the introduction of the concept of "fairness" has served to erode its principles.

You may recall my thread on buffers fronting hazards.
These are nothing more than a concession to the concept of "fairness"

I thought the main reason for buffers (assuming you are moaning about wht fairway isn't cut to the hazard boundary)fronting hazards these days was environmental.  

Ciao

BCrosby,

I couldn't agree more with Mark Fine's article.  In fact, I wrote an essay on the subject in Paul Daley's third "Golf: A Worldwide Perspective".  

And I couldn't agree more with one you're saying.  A golf course just "is"; neither fair nor unfair.  

However, unlike your second to last paragraph, I disagree (for the same reason that a golf course just "is") that a feature on a course is too hard or too easy.  Once again, a feature simply "is".  Rather, it is our goals (making a four, reaching the green, etc...), that are realistic or not.

Here's a quote from my essay that I think you'd enjoy:

"The other concept where the term “unfair” is often used is with regards to the difficulty of a given shot and to, again, the sense of entitlement following a good stroke.  There are many design features that fall under the “unfair” label: a long par four with a small green; a wildly contoured putting surface; a bunker in the middle of the fairway; a severe slope in the landing area.  

Golfers each have a stubborn opinion of what type of hazards are acceptable and resent anything that catches them off guard.  Above all, they disapprove of any form of penalty following what they feel was a reasonably well executed shot – regardless of whether or not that shot was actually well executed, or even well planned.  While golfers accept and enjoy a certain degree of challenge, they quickly complain when that challenge exceeds their ability or expectations, even if room was provided away from trouble.  Most ironically, the better golfers are often the first to complain, even though they are the ones with the most ability to properly manage their game and the course.  

Yet contrary to what is often believed, the architect has no obligation to offer what a golfer believes is a clear and reasonable target.  Rather, a creative architect will offer a reasonable – though not necessarily obvious – alternative, while tempting the player to try the unreasonable.  And when the difference between reasonable and unreasonable is so deliciously balanced, the unsuccessful player is sure to claim an injustice."

Bcrosby,

I'm sure we agree for the most part.  In fact, I very much like your way of thinking: that a hole simply "is", and as such, cannot be considered unfair.   In that same vein (and perhaps this is where we disagree) a hole cannot be too hard -- or too easy -- if it simply "is".

The ONLY way I think terms like "unfair" and "too hard" should be used for a golf hole (or a golf feature) is when there is no option.  For example, the 17th at Sawgrass is, in my opinion, one of the greatest holes in golf.  However, if I was to play the TPC with my girlfriend, she couldn't play the hole, as she can barely get the ball airborne.  What is she to do??

Actually (as long as there is a reasonable option for anyone to play a hole –a small but important qualifier) I think calling a golf hole "hard" is nonsensical.  You said it yourself, and couldn't have said it better: a bicycle, hamburger, or golf hole cannot be unfair.  

I’ll add to that “Or hard”.  

What's an unfair hamburger?  It doesn't make any sense!  Of course not.  

What's a difficult bicycle?  That doesn't make any sense either!  Ah... But RIDING a bicycle might be difficult.  All of a sudden, we have a goal in mind.  

The 17th at St. Andrews isn't a hard hole.  The road hole bunker isn’t a tough hazard  Ah... but making a four certainly is.  That's a goal.  And getting up & down from the bunker most certainly is tough.  But that’s also a goal.  And if you think you should have a divine right to save you par from the bunker, the hazard might even be deemed… [gaps!]… "unfair!".

But I think we totally agree on one fact:  The word "unfair" is most often a very poor choice of word (when most people mean "unlucky" or "too hard").  And unfortunately, we are mis-using this word, much to the detriment of interesting golf courses.

Indeed, any architecture that isn't blatantly obvious for even the most brainless golfer is condemned as tricked up or unfair.

Tom Doak put it best for me when he mentioned golfers getting caught up in "entitlement". The ignorant expectancy of entitlement is the root of "fairness".

Everything that happens to you in life, jobs, family and the like are not fair and entitlement is not a consideration. Yet we are to live in a world where loved ones of no significant age can be whisked away from us without consideration, and yet an unfortunate lie in the fairway causes golfers to complain. It is a game. Oh that some people would occasionally remember that.

Tim,
Great story.  I don't know if your father is still with you but if he is, I suspect he tells about that birdie often.

Jeremy,
Nice essay.  I'll have to read the whole thing.  

Jim,
I think you are making the same points as many of us.  I just don't ever like to use the terms fair or unfair.  I replace those words with words like good design or poor design.  

Tony,
Amen!

Bob,
Good exchange between you and Jeremy.  I enjoyed the dialogue.  

Tim,
Glad to hear your Dad is doing well.  Have fun in Floridand and remember to share our little concept of fairness passage with him.  I'm sure he will appreciate it as much as anyone.
Mark