[DMoriarty]

Matt,  I dont think I can nor do I think anyone else can define fairness.  We can occassionally know it when we see it but for the most part people throwing around those terms are a danger to the game of golf and I'd rather not get involved.  As long as we are all playing the same course . . .

But if you need to attribute a definition to me take another look at my post.  My definition is the opposite of yours.  Whatever you put forth as fair, I call it unfair, and visa versa.  

Matt, randomness, luck, rub of the green, whatever you want to call it is integral to golf.  It is just not golf without it.  I am not trying to ban all consistency from golf, just reminding you that consistency has never ever been what golf is about.  As for your examples, they all have more to do with course set-up and the absurd notion that par must be protected.  If you want to equate major tournament setups with architecture then you are further gone than I thought. . .

We need less consistency in our architecture, not more.  


And Matt, I did read your first post.  Your gyst is unmistakeable,  More rub of the green = Less fair;  Less rub of the green = more fair.   If this is the case, then golf has no place for fairness.  

That design should attempt to understand that golf is a game and a game must have some sort of framework to it in order to provide some benchmark in identifying who the better player is.

Better player to whom matt?  If we combine this thread with your usual "driving the ball is the seminal skill in golf and best defines the better player" theme, then we are left with some pretty absurd and boring courses which wont hold the interest of 99 percent of the golfing world.  Both in the name of fairness and eliminating luck from the equation.  
 

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I stated it in a straightforward manner -- when luck becomes the d-o-m-i-n-a-n-t feature you don't have skill being rewarded as it should be.

David M said, "Both in the name of fairness and eliminating luck from the equation."  

David -- my good man -- I never suggested golf is 100% free from "rub of the green" situations. It has a role -- but it should not be the dominant ingredient when playing ANY courses as you would favor. My reaction? Knock yourself out and play those courses that are TOTALLY INCONSISTENT AND TOTALLY FLAWED BECAUSE OF IT.

Please -- do me a big favor -- read what I write and leave the twisting of words out. I did say quality golf designs separate the good from the average from the poor shots that are made. It is because of the very fact that they do that these courses are indeed celebrated because of their utter clarity. When there is little or no distinction between shots you have a clear situation IMHO of unfairness.

I never said or implied that randomness has no part in golf -- it's part of any sport. The key aspect is keeping randomness within some sort of context so that it doesn't turn the game on its head.

You have the contrarian impulse my friend. If I said the sky is blue and the earth round I'm sure you would dissent and say something else. It's really quite funny but always sooooo predictable.

David -- my New Year's resolution is to play more inconsistent courses -- it will help me understand your keen sense of the game. Happy New Year sir ...

Adam:

"And on your last two points, from someone who was at the O club in 98 and saw the hole in question, I can only conclude that a golfer who feels he's accomplished, cries unfair, when the difficulty is not overcome."

My good man -- if you r-e-a-l-l-y observed the situations outlined you would know that no "fair" opportunity presented itself for the competitors involved. Even the USGA admitted the pin location on the 18th at Olympic in '98 was poorly considered and lent itself to a clear farce. The tears being cried were genuine -- not ones of self interest.

[Thomas_Brown]

Re: Olympic 18 - Tom Lehman also went nuts over it, and Kirk Triplett picked up his ball in protest after his first putt went 40 feet by.

[DMoriarty]

Matt,  I am reading your posts.  Are you reading your posts?  How about mine?  

Let me ask you yet again, I'll bold it so you dont miss it . . . . define the better player . . . otherwise your definition is incomplete.

Also please explain to me just how a "fair" course punishes a bad shot?  I dont think I understand the concept.

If my responses to you are consistent it is only because I am responding to the same old stuff again and again.  

A challenge for you matt.  Can you post a post without tossing out a thinly veiled insult aimed at my experience, my perspective, or my keen sense of the game?  

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward/Dave Moriarty:

Maybe I don't understand the English language, but I do believe luck plays a very big part of golf (maybe a "dominant" part) and we should probably accept that rather than worry about fairness.

That is because unless we completely eliminate contour from landing areas, green complexes and greens themselves, golfers will always experience all kinds of random bounces that are likely to result in a different score while playing the hole.

You any I may both play an approach shot and hit nearly the exact same shot. In other words, we play the shot with nearly equivalent skill. Nonetheless, our shots may land just a few feet apart, but due to some odd bounce come to rest in positions where different final scores on the hole are more likely than not.

Do we deem that to be "unfair"? Or do we just accept that as part of the nature of the game, something to enjoy and appreciate rather than to criticize?

Keep in mind that situations like the one I described are characteristic of some of the great treasures of golf architecture, e.g., the approach shot to #6 at Ballybunion.

[DMoriarty]

Tim,

I agree with everything you say.  Except next time, could you try to be sarcastic or something . . . you know, to add a little flavor to it?


Matt,

Can you name any golf holes that, through their architecture, advantage the lesser player?  Can you name any such course?  You've seen them all, so if any exist you must have seen them . . .

[Joe Hancock]

I think fair and unfair only apply to competition situations. If everyone plays the sme course setup...no matter how ridiculous or average....then it is fair. I really don't have a good example of unfair. Maybe when competition takes place on different days with extreme weather variations, but even that is arguable.

Matt, when you use the term fair or unfair, are you competing against another golfer, or is it a matter of you vs. golf course?

Joe

[Matt_Ward]

David M:

I can name quite a few, however, I'll leave you with one that sticks out quite blatantly. The new Rees Jones course in Florida called The Creek Course at Hammock Dunes (Palm Coast, FL) features a mid-length par-4 375-yard 15th hole.

The hole PLAYS considerably fairer architecturally the further up you play the hole. Why? Rees saw fit to provide an all-carry tee shot with minimum full carry of 240 yards from the tips to get on dry land on the other side of wetlands. There is NO ARCHITECTURAL ALTERNATIVE! If the wind picks up from the north and sweeps from the Intracoastal Waterwater you can empty a complete bucket of balls (and then some) in trying to get across.

The player who plays from a shorter distance gets FAR, FAR less carry and the angle from which you play is also more practical and conducive to some element of fairness through a bailout area.

Let me also mention another trick done at times by architects and that is deliberately ending fairways at 270 yards on holes that might play 450 yards or more. The purpose simply traps the better player in HAVING to clubdown in order to stay within the fairway confines and STILL having to club up in order to get to the green. If memory serves -- the 13th hole at the relatively new Stone Canyon Course in the greater Tucson area by Jay Moorish fits the bill. The lesser player GAINS a worthy edge by knowing his tee ball will not be jeopardized and he can still play the hole without ANY real adjustment.

I can name quite a few others but suffice to say I'll just include these for now.

David -- JUST IN CASE YOU MAY SKIP THE NEXT SENTENCE --the better player is one defined by handicap level IMHO. If you have another way to define the better player please let me know.

David -- I have written on the subject enough times to fully explain my position. If YOU can't understand it well that's another matter. Please hurry out and play those INCONSISTENT courses you favor. I can tell you one thing -- you won't have Ward clogging up the fairways in front of you. I'll leave you to enjoy such architectural gems.

Happy New Year sir ...


Tim W:

I never said "unfairness" or randomness doesn't play a part of golf -- or any other sport for that matter. What I did say is that when it becomes too overreaching for any hole / course you then have a situation where the reward / penalty element that is fundamental to golf gets turned on its head.

Quality golf design IMHO is about c-l-a-r-i-t-y in what is expected from the golfer. When "inconsistency becomes the dominant characteristics then the essence of the game -- skill -- becomes reduced to the wide vargaries of luck and chance.

I don't doubt luck / chance is apart of the game -- it's a question of proportionality. Unfortunately, sometimes the organizers of major events opt to make courses so impartical to play (e.g. the '99 BO at Carnoustie; the 18th at Olympic; the 10th and 12th holes at the '02 US Open at bethpage during Friday's second round) that noting more than luck became the dominant ingredient to succeed.

[Norbert P]

 Fair is within expectations.
 Unfair is outside of expectations.

 Thus, each is variable to ones own expectations and using these terms only reveals our own lack of golf course vernacular.

 IMNSHO

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

I just believe luck is a very big part of the game and that nothing can or should be done architecturally to change it.

Back in 1985, I stood in the middle of the 16th hole at Pine Valley while Bob Lewis prepared to play the shot that won the Walker Cup for the United States.

When his caddy told him the yardage was 185 yards, Bob insisted on knowing whether it was 185 or 185 & 1/2. Convinced the caddy correctly had the yardage at 185, bob then fired his 4 iron to about three feet to win the hole, the match and the Cup.

But, how many golfers actually play the game with such precision? Won't most golfers be limited in terms of their ability to control shot dispersion and, therefore, be greatly subject to luck, random bounces, etc.?

For the mid handicapper, luck may mean the difference between shotting a 90 vs a 100. For the professional, it mean mean shooting a 69 and losing to the man who shot 68. But, in both cases, luck is involved with each and every shot. It is as intregal to the game as the clubs and balls themselves.

[Matt_Ward]

Tim W:

I'll repeat what I said a-g-a-i-n -- I don't disagree that luck or randomness has a place in golf. It's a matter of degree -- when it becomes the DOMINANT aspect when playing then I think it's role has gone tooooo far. At that point the clarity of the course can be jeopardized through a series of unfair golf shots, holes or even the entire course IMHO.

[Norbert P]

 Matt, I get the impression that you believe "what is not known, 'should' (juxtaposing 'does') not exist."

 I, being a 20 handicapper, am in perpetual randomness and cannot even conceive of fate not being a part of the game.
  I cannot measure golf course value by its clarities and obviousnesses.  There has to be something mystical out there or I might as well be at the driving range foolishly strengthening my ego.

[Tim_Weiman]

Matt Ward:

Skill will separate Slag Bandoon from a professional golfer, but if Slag plays against a fellow 20 handicap or two professionals play against eachother, then luck is going to greatly influence either match.

I don't know any golf course where the professional will not prevail over the 20 handicap. Nor do I know any course where luck will not greatly influence a match between two players of roughly equivalent skill.

Luck will always play a critical role in virtually every shot played; its hard to imagine a golf course where this would not be true.

[TEPaul]

Matt Ward said:

"The hole PLAYS considerably fairer architecturally the further up you play the hole. Why? Rees saw fit to provide an all-carry tee shot with minimum full carry of 240 yards from the tips to get on dry land on the other side of wetlands. There is NO ARCHITECTURAL ALTERNATIVE! If the wind picks up from the north and sweeps from the Intracoastal Waterwater you can empty a complete bucket of balls (and then some) in trying to get across."

Matt:

In my opinion, that's neither fair nor unfair---that's merely very poor golf architecture!!

[Michael Whitaker]

Matt once again seeks to present himself as the "superior" golfer and superior critic. Alas, he once again displays the egotistical attitude of some "Better" players described by Alister MacKenzie in The Spirit of St Andrews. On the skill of evaluating courses Dr. MacKenzie noted... "the ability to play the game was often harmful, as first class players only too frequently were subconsciously influenced by their own particular type of play and only too prone to disregard that of others." Sound like anyone we know?

Considering a "Better" player's feelings about the fairness of a hole, Dr. MacKenzie writes, "When he plays it successfully, it is everything that is good, and when he is unsuccessful it is everything that is bad. It frequently happens that the best holes give rise to the most bitter controversy. It is largely a question of the spirit in which the problem is approached, depending on the player. Whether he looks upon it from the 'card and pencil' point of view and condemns anything that disturbs his steady series of three and fours, or whether he approaches it in the 'spirit of adventure' of the true sportsman. There are well know players who invariably condemn any hole for which they have taken over a six, and if by any chance they ever reach double figures, words fail them to describe in adequate language what they think of that particular hole."

In response to your Hammock Dunes problem I think Dr. MacKenzie might tell you to move up a tee or two. But, in your "card and pencil" world I suspect that would be impossible for you to do. Quite a conundrum.

[DMoriarty]

The hole PLAYS considerably fairer architecturally the further up you play the hole. Why? Rees saw fit to provide an all-carry tee shot with minimum full carry of 240 yards from the tips to get on dry land on the other side of wetlands. There is NO ARCHITECTURAL ALTERNATIVE! If the wind picks up from the north and sweeps from the Intracoastal Waterwater you can empty a complete bucket of balls (and then some) in trying to get across.

The player who plays from a shorter distance gets FAR, FAR less carry and the angle from which you play is also more practical and conducive to some element of fairness through a bailout area.

Come on Matt, you can do better than this.  Of course these golfers have to be playing the same tee!  Otherwise it is not the same hole at all, is it?

Let me also mention another trick done at times by architects and that is deliberately ending fairways at 270 yards on holes that might play 450 yards or more. The purpose simply traps the better player in HAVING to clubdown in order to stay within the fairway confines and STILL having to club up in order to get to the green. If memory serves -- the 13th hole at the relatively new Stone Canyon Course in the greater Tucson area by Jay Moorish fits the bill. The lesser player GAINS a worthy edge by knowing his tee ball will not be jeopardized and he can still play the hole without ANY real adjustment.

Are you really implying that the lesser player is better at a <270 yd shot??  That is ridiculous.  And what about the next shot.  The better player still has a huge advantage, just less of an advantage than the one you prefer to give him.  Heck, if you gave them both a free drop 100 yds out, the better player would still have the greatest advantage.  

I can name quite a few others but suffice to say I'll just include these for now.

I guess you'd better name a few, because you havent named any yet.  

David -- JUST IN CASE YOU MAY SKIP THE NEXT SENTENCE --the better player is one defined by handicap level IMHO.

Then all courses are fair bc the lower handicap player will always have the advantage.  

David -- I have written on the subject enough times to fully explain my position. If YOU can't understand it well that's another matter. Please hurry out and play those INCONSISTENT courses you favor. I can tell you one thing -- you won't have Ward clogging up the fairways in front of you. I'll leave you to enjoy such architectural gems.

Just couldnt meet my challenge, could you matt . . .

[Doug Siebert]

Back in 1985, I stood in the middle of the 16th hole at Pine Valley while Bob Lewis prepared to play the shot that won the Walker Cup for the United States.

When his caddy told him the yardage was 185 yards, Bob insisted on knowing whether it was 185 or 185 & 1/2. Convinced the caddy correctly had the yardage at 185, bob then fired his 4 iron to about three feet to win the hole, the match and the Cup.

But, how many golfers actually play the game with such precision? Won't most golfers be limited in terms of their ability to control shot dispersion and, therefore, be greatly subject to luck, random bounces, etc.?

Nobody plays the game that level of precision, not even Tiger.  C'mon, the merest zephyr of wind at the apex of the ball's flight will account for a half yard.  The "half a yard" crap was perhaps in vogue for a while since Norman wanted yardages to that precision during his prime, but I've never heard of anyone doing it since.  And I'll bet Bob Lewis has lost that affectation in the meantime as well.

[TEPaul]

Slag Bandoon said:

"Matt, I get the impression that you believe "what is not known, 'should' (juxtaposing 'does') not exist."

Slag:

That, (and of course followed by the rest of your post #36) just may be one of the most cogent little remarks ever made on Golfclubatlas.com!

I love that remark, and if one wanted to extrapolate it deep into golf architecture (which would not be hard to do at all) I believe even Max Behr would completely love it too and if possible he might even try to hug you for that remark!

On the issue of something such as "fairness" in golf as it relates to the golf architecture of the "Natural School" that Behr advocated (where "Nature" (or the real perception of it with the golfer) HAD NOT LOST its necessary part in the balance) Behr has this to say;

"Such issues as equity (expected similar results for all), fair play (fairness), a just reward to skill, principles that govern in games (as opposed to "sport") are continually obtruding. They undoubtedly have their place in golf (note that well!), but as they are not found in nature, it behooves us to be very chary in marrying these ideas in her, that our offspring will not prove to be mongrels."

Not black and white ideas on his part (thankfully) but quite gray, and well worth considering. The parentheses in his quote are mine.

[TEPaul]

"And I'll bet Bob Lewis has lost that affectation in the meantime as well."

Bob and Doug:

I'll bet Bob hasn't lost that. Bob Lewis did do that--Bob Lewis does do that--and I'm confident he probably always will.

Why? Because that's just the way Bob is. Bob Lewis was and probably still is a very fine golfer but he in no way had the market on precision cornered any more than any other very good golfer. I've played some golf with Bob at both PVGC and Seminole, I think, and one of the quirks of Bob and his game is he keeps a running commentary going of what he's thinking about before every shot--and the commentary is not exactly sotto voce!

I think the reason Bob does that and probably always will is because he's simply a scrappy little golfer who never gives up or lets down. That running commentary of extremely high precision shot planning is psychological--nothing more. And the psychology, I'm convinced, is directed at those playing against him--nothing else!

One time at PVGC in competition after listening to that high precision shot planning commentary on Bob's part for the first ten holes I said to him that I wasn't sure I needed to hear all that stuff but since I had for the first ten holes it occured to me that the majority of the time all the high precision stuff he was broadcasting really wasn't coming off exactly as he was announcing it would.

Needless to say I think Bob and his partner ended up beating the shit out of me and my partner anyway!



Another thing--if you're on the practice range and you want to concentrate on working on your own game--go to the other end of the range from Bob. But if you want to have an education on the dynamics and physics of the golf swing stand there and watch Bob and listen to him!

[Tim_Weiman]

Doug Siebert/Tom Paul,

In citing the Bob Lewis story, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone plays golf to that level of precision. Just the opposite. If Bob or anyone else does, it is a minority so small as to be one grain of sand on a beach.

My real point is that nearly equivalent shots will be subject to random results all the time, even for an elite class of players as Bob certainly was during his Walker Cup days.

So long as we have interesting contour in places the golf ball lands - fairway landing areas and green complexes - and we have courses maintained to be firm and fast, the final results of any two nearly equivalent shots may be quite different.

That's why I can't imagine luck ever being removed from being central to the game.

It seems like Matt Ward envisions a game whereby skill and skill alone will the outcome. That's never going to happen. Random bounces will always be "dominant" - to use Matt's term.

I'll refer to Bob Lewis one more time. I remember him once saying that he was much more a fan of four day tournaments than one day matches because he felt anything could happen in a single 18 holes, but the better golfer is more likely to be identified over multiple rounds.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

What about Shaun Micheel (sp) at this year's PGA.  His quote was something like "it was a perfect distance for my seven iron, 174 yards."  Knowing the exact yardage, and knowing your normal swing will produce that must be an easier shot than being between yardages, or in my case, so often being beyond maximum yardage to the green!

Of course, you could add that his tee shot landing at precisely 174 from the pin, and not 171 is also luck, and you would be right.

However, would you design a course so that better skill didnt' have a natural advantage?  Most wouldn't.  If you are playing for any amount of money, or practising hard to get to a certain lower handicap, you would not appreciate a hole (like the Rees Jones example) where you couldn't finish, simply because you couldn't reach the carry point with your normal tee shot.  For that matter, your notion of interesting contours sweeping some shots off the fairway while identical ones stay on is something most try to design away from, as well, although some areas could be "no go zones".  

Certainly, to be fair, there ought to be at least one area of fairway where you are confidant you can hold a tee shot, no?  We've mentioned Olympic 18's green, but what about the 17th fairway where new mowing heights made almost every tee shot roll to the right rough.   Players didn't complain there, becasue it was the US Open and they are playing each other, and no one could hold the fairway, so there was no advantage.

I agree with Matts first example, and also his contention about luck not being dominant.  An impossible forced carry, a perched green, crowned at top so that no shot can hold, a dogleg par 3 are some examples of holes we can all probably agree are unfair, simply because their design doesn't allow ANY shot to reach its intended target.   The degree of gray comes in when, for example, a green can be held more easily with a fade than hook.  If shto requirements are relatively balanced throughout, then its fair, even if some complain.

I agree only partially with his second example.  To occaisionally make distance control for the longer hitters a requirement doesn't seem unfair to me, although I can understand they would be upset if they could never use a driver, especially on long holes.

My simple definitions are - If there is no way to play the hole, its unfair.  If there is one, its fair.  If there are two, its strategic.  And if there are three or more, its also flexible to most players.

Perhaps the twain will never meet in the definition of fair for single digit handicappers and below, versus the opinion of higher handicappers, but Matt's point of view is very typical of players at the upper end of the scale.  

[Matt_Ward]

Jeff B:

Good post and solid analysis. I've always believed that the heart of golf is having designs that provide credible options when playing -- that's what keeps the game interesting because the golfer can CHOOSE his / her game plan with each shot.

When options are reduced to simply a ONE WAY element you have a very limited recourse -- more so for the higher handicap because it's likely the better player may be able to overcome a great deal more -- but not always (see my example at The Creek Course previously posted).

I rate courses highly when options / alternates exist so that a hole / course doesn't rely upon "unfair" situations that only serve to highlight it's demands but fail to illuminate it's greatness.

J Hancock:

"Matt, when you use the term fair or unfair, are you competing against another golfer, or is it a matter of you vs. golf course?"

I simply reference my points on the totality of what I find. I don't just look at what I face in alone -- I try to envision what all types of players will face. Many times when I rate a course I'll have on hand a variety of friends of different handicap levels and I carefully observe how they handle the situations at hand. In many instances a "fair" hole provides for some sort of alternative -- the "unfair" variety usually are ones on which the range of options is usually constricted to a narrow choice.

Tim W:

You simply glossed over my point. No problem -- clearly you don't understand that having something as a part of a game (e.g. luck, randomness) is OK -- it's the question of degree which I have stated on more than several occasions.

Michael W:

I appreciate your ability to philosophize using the good Doctor as an example, however, if you think I simply critique because I "succeeded / failed" at a given hole I can only say you are seriously located in the deep left field seats. I would
advise you to move a little closer to where the game is being played -- I know it can be tough to observe things when you're out on in the bleachers.

I simply stated the proposition that good courses provide clarity when playing. They are also less dependent on the whims of luck / randomness and as a result they do provide a healthy range of options so that the aspect of "fairness / unfairness" is less of an issue. I never said that one can expect 100% fairness. People need to read what's posted -- not spin it to their liking.
 
Michael -- I state my opinions -- if you don't like them -- please enunciate your great wisdom -- I'll all ears. I never stated my handicap as a golfer or made the ego assumption as all-knowing critic -- just my own personal thoughts.

One other thing -- I made the carry in question and if YOU KNEW ME -- you would know I am not fixated as a card and pencil type golfer as you would imply.

David M:

I gave you two examples -- I could frankly care less on whether YOU accept them as valid situations. Just check out the comments made by an architect -- Jeff Brauer. If there is no way to play a hole it becomes unfair -- you on the other hand champion holes / courses that are totally INCONSISTENT -- your words not mine. Why have any sort of clarity when playing a course -- let's just leave it to random chance and luck. How lovely indeed!

Golfers play different tees as a measurement of bringing together some sort of equality when playing. You may have heard the term -- it's called handicapping.

David, when you get an opportunity please flush out all the courses that are utterly inconsistent and send me to me ASAP -- I'll be sure to skip them if you don't mind.

P.S. David -- you seek to simply be a contrarian -- that's your prerogative. Best wishes for the New Year sir ...

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff Brauer:

At the risk of repeating myself, skill will separate players of different ability, but luck will eventually prevail in a match between two players of comparable ability.

How would one possibly design a golf course to make it otherwise? What would we do? Turn them into perfectly flat parking lots?

Of course not. Contour is what makes the game so interesting. It also produces random results. Hence luck will always be dominant.

Some golfers may fool themselves into believing luck will not or should not prevail. These tend to be people who may be skilled but aren't serious observers of the game. Go down to your local muni or go to a professional tournament and you will see luck all over the place.

[Michael Moore]

When Bob Lewis asks for the half-yard, is that to the front or the back of the cup?

[DMoriarty]

Shivas, was Larry Mize's miracle shot from near the 11th green at Augusta luck or skill?   If it was a little of each can you break down the proportion?

Did the person who struck the ball better win that year?  Was the result unfair?  

An object of golf is to hit a little ball into a slighty bigger hole hundreds of yards away over varied terrain in varied conditions.  Anyone who doesnt acknowledge that luck will sometimes3 determine the outcome is deluding themselves.  Further, anyone who doesnt embrace this truth is denying the essence of the game.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()