Maybe we should blame Donald Ross!

[Mark_Fine]

I think many of the problems that golf suffers these days comes from the concept of "fairness".  American golfers in partiucular want golf to be fair    I was just a the Century CC and they are removing the fescue around the bunkers apparently in the interest of "fairness".  The bunkers are supposedly hard enough without it  

Maybe we should blame this "fairness" concept on Ross.  In 1935, after transforming Pinehurst #2, Ross is quoted as saying, "As a result of extensive changes, I am firmly of the opinion that the leading professionals and golfers of every caliber, for many years to come, will find the Number Two Course the "fairest" yet most exacting test of their game,..."

What did he mean by fair and could this be why so many people, publications, golfers, architects,...you name it have taken it to heart?
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark;

I think Ross's concept of "fair" was a lot less fair than the fairness foisted on future golfers than he could ever envisage.

With Pinehurst, I take his "fair" comment to reflect that a good shot was rewarded, a poor or less than well thought-out shot was penalized.  

"Fair" today too often refers to containment mounding, flattish greens, neutered bunkers, and 6 sets of tees.

[CHrisB]

Hard to know exactly what "fairest" meant to Donald Ross in 1935; the word may have had a different meaning back then.

I don't see the fairness issue as accelerated by golf architects or architecture, but rather reflected in architecture.  The way I see it, the fairness issue has become greater as golf in general has become more "Americanized", and as professional golf has risen over the last 40-50 years.  

But I especially wonder just how much fairness would be an issue if match play was still emphasized as much as it used to be when the game was younger.

The essence of stroke play competition is to see who can take the fewest amount of strokes under the same conditions.  Obviously, the conditions are never the same across the board in any tournament, but we still strive for that ideal by trying to "level the playing field" and eliminate luck from the equation.  For many, if luck plays a part in the outcome the competition is tainted.  The solution?  Flatten the fairways, flatten the greens, make the fairways and greens consistent and smooth, try to avoid bad weather, etc.

A related characteristic of stroke play is that every round generates a score, with which too many golfers become overly preoccupied because they take it (and they think others do as well) as some sort of measure of their ability.  Egos get wrapped up in score, and luck or unfairness again becomes threatening.

I'm thinking about the story that Bob Crosby told on the North Berwick thread about a marginal shot leading to many lost shots on the 13th.  In match play, such "bad luck" is no big deal--only one hole lost.  But in stroke play an entire round or tournament can be ruined, and not everyone can handle that.  The solution?  Again, try to make everything "fair".

Every time I go to Scotland and play the old seaside courses, especially if the weather is foul, I find myself thinking "I can see why they play so much match play over here."

How many times have you heard this--
"What did you shoot today?"
"81, but I got screwed on 17 and lipped out four times and how bad was the pin on 12? I thought the course was unfair." [Translation--"I'm a better golfer than my score indicates, but the conditions weren't fair so I couldn't show how good I am."  Translation--"My self-worth is so wrapped up in score that I've got to pray to the God of Fairness so that I can shoot a good number and everyone will think I'm a good player."]

Now in match play there is no such question as "What did you shoot today?"  Instead--
"How did it go today?"
"We had a good match; it went back and forth and I gave him a good run, but he closed me out at the 17th.  But you should have seen the shot I hit on #11!"
Now, he could have shot 4 under or 12 over, but that's not the point of match play; the essence of match play is to win more holes from your opponent than you lose.  You don't have a big fat number next to your name, you just have a match result, and if the other guy was better, well, hats off to him.  Fairness doesn't have as much to do with it.

Which is fine, because golf is not supposed to be fair.  It's a game in which luck will always play a part (bigger than we'll ever admit), and that is a good thing.

But again, I don't think Ross or any other architect brought the issue of fairness to golfers; I think golfers brought the issue of fairness to them.

If you want to build a level playing field, build a tennis or basketball court; you can't do it in golf.

[Dave_Miller]

Mark:

Fair in 1935 was probably not the same as fair today.  Back then it probably meant something like this is a challenge to the best golfers.

Cheers,
Dave

[A.G._Crockett]

ChrisB
Marvelous and insightful post!  These are most certainly two very different ways of looking at the game. If we play a match and you win 1 up, we both have a chance to feel like we were treated "fairly".  If I'm an 8 and shoot 85, the fact that you shot 86 won't mean much to me!  Ego is powerful indeed...

[Mark_Fine]

The problem is, as most of you point out, intrepreting the definition of fairness and what Ross meant.  The word fair has many different meanings.  I just think it has too many negative connotations when it comes to golf.  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Chris,

Excellent analysis.  I like match play just the same, but it's not used nearly as much as I'd like.

Another common situation of stroke play:  "I had an 82, but that snowman on 6 killed me.  I hit one OB and one in the creek.  Had two other penalty strokes and 2 three putts.  Had 2 birdies."

[ross]

Is the fairness of Pinehurst #2 due to the fact that it is virtually impossible to lose a golf ball?  The early architects of Scottish descent all emhasized the pain-in-the-ass character of architecture that causes one to lose balls.

Fairness vs. appropriate penalty for a missed shot being fair.  That describes Ross concept of fairness well.  Any more than that is coddling the golfer.

[Dan Kelly]

So, Ross supposedly "said": "As a result of extensive changes, I am firmly of the opinion that the leading professionals and golfers of every caliber, for many years to come, will find the Number Two Course the 'fairest' yet most exacting test of their game..."

A. I'd bet you my bottom dollar that he didn't SAY it. Those words never came out of any man's mouth. Not any man, not anytime, not anywhere!

B. He might have WRITTEN it (with or without the aid of a copywriter -- David Ogilvy-style ad copy being what it sounds like to me).

C. If he did write it (or merely approve of its having been written, for attribution to him): Did he (or his writer) put quotation marks around "fairest," as Mark_Fine has reported the quotation? The answer makes a huge difference (in an admittedly tiny question).

If Ross had said No. 2 was the fairest test (no quotation marks), then we would have to conclude that Ross believed in fairness as an attribute of a great course, and we could then speculate on his definition of fairness. Good shots well-rewarded, indifferent shots treated indifferently, poor shots punished?

But with quotation marks around the word, he is quite clearly NOT saying that fairness is a fundamental attribute of a great course. He is, by contrast, quite clearly saying that OTHER people -- players of every caliber -- will find No. 2 the quote fairest unquote test. He is not saying, one way or the other, whether HE believes in the concept of fairness.

I don't know Ross well enough to speculate on this, but I like to imagine that, as he put the quotation marks around "fairest," he was thinking: "Whatever the hell they mean by that, the goofballs!"

Still: Reads like standard-issue ad copy to me -- with all the honesty and deeper meaning we've come to expect from standard-issue ad copy.

To ChrisB:

WONDERFUL post about match and stroke play. Thank you.

[TEPaul]

Actually, this is an interesting topic because it probably is semi-possible to accurately track when and why the whole idea of "fair" and "fairness" began to enter the game--and later began to filter into the thinking of architects and architecture!

In my opinion, the idea of "fair" entered golf when stroke play began to enter the game!

Do we all know when stroke play began to enter the game and why?

Anyway, stroke play golf was certainly a late entry to the game if you consider the whole sweep of the history and evolution of golf!

It began to enter the game in the latter part of the 19th century not that long after "architecture" as a man-made effort began to enter the game bigtime!

Ironically, many of the early architects were some of the only ones who played stroke play competitions! That was true because they were the jack of all trades of golf back then--the professional, the clubmaker, the greenskeeper, and the early era touring pro, if you will.

Stroke play was conceived by them or for them because they couldn't take more than a day away from work! Stroke play was a one day competition generally in the beginning for that reason and stroke play at that time was always unhandicapped!

Handicapping and stroke play golf (and how it relates to the match play format) is an enormously complex subject for another time but when that time comes, it can be explained and described how stroke play and handicapping for match play really doesn't work well! Then you may see clearer why golf today at every level and every format (very much including match play) has become pushed ever closer to the concept of "fairness" simply BECAUSE handicapping and stroke play do not work well together to administer to the match play format!

Some say "fairness" is part of the "Americanization" of golf but it really isn't--at least not just because the idea of "fairness seems more prevalent in America! And it really isn't so much about the onset of increased stroke play golf at a higher level of play either!

The reason "fairness" is more prevalent in America is much of what Rich Goodale and I have argued about for the last two years involving the USGA's handicap (and GHIN) system and the way handicaps are generated in most of the rest of the world.

In America handicaps have been generated by gross score posting just like in the rest of the world but the enormous DIFFERENCE between the American system and the rest of the world is those gross scores that are posted by most Americans are done so as they play the MATCH PLAY FORMAT!!

That's the key to understanding most of this "fairness" thing in my opinion! The rest of the world generates their handicaps by gross score posting too but generally ONLY when they play their weekly or monthly STROKE PLAY tournaments. That's virtually something that rarely happens in America--weekly or monthly stroke play tournaments for handicap purposes!

The reason this anomaly and obstacle exists in the American handicapping system is the USGA is intent on and concentrates on "QUANTITY" score posting (mostly match play rounds) and the rest of the world concentrates on "QUALITY" score posting (the weekly or monthly stroke play competitions).

But certainly you can never forget about the original stroke play competitions of the original stroke play competitors--the so-called jack of all trade pros which evolved all the way to today's world Pro TOURS! They are interested in fairness to a much larger degree than the everyday amateur match play player (particularly those that don't play in America with it's anomalous handicapping system) simply because situations that present unusual luck or perceived "unfairness" can blow them suddenly out of the tourney and the week!!

This problem and this sentiment of "fairness"--among the better or professional tournament stroke play players was not at all lost on the likes of Tillinghast and Ross!! Obviously particularly when they began to build the wholly American so-called "CHAMPIONSHIP GOLF COURSE"! like a Pinehurst #2 that was used and intended more for stroke play competitions than the other courses and architecture they had built and were building!!

Tillinghast himself (certainly no shrinking violet with an opinon) was actually terrified what the early pros and touring pros thought of some situations on some of his designs like the severity of certain greens and the likelihood of 3 putting and he wrote about that!!

So the inception of the idea of "fairness" by no means started with Ross and it's not something he should be blamed for. The idea of "fairness" in golf and it's architecture is a conglomeration of things, in my opinion, but primarily the reason for it is the handicapping system in America and how it works, plain and simple!!

Now, Rich Goodale is going to tell me that this is an admission on my part of the ineffectiveness of the USGA's handicapping system and that Americans should be forced to play weekly or monthly stroke play tournaments to generate more legitimate handicaps and stop posting so many GROSS scores (the stroke play format) when they play MATCH PLAY GOLF!

But I'm not buying that! The simplest way to overcome this entire problem and probably help do away with some of the fixation on "fairness" is for the USGA to not force American players to do something they're not used to doing but to set up their (USGA) score posting system so that those who want to post handicap scores while playing match play do so on a HOLE BY HOLE basis!!!

Why should that be and why would that be the solution?? Because hole by hole posting IS the match play format! If they happen to play stroke play or that format then and only then can they post a SINGLE GROSS SCORE simply because that IS the stroke play format!!

Gross score posting (or even adjusted gross score posting--AGS, ie, EQUITABLE STROKE CONTROL--ESC) is simply never, ever, ever, ever going to translate well into the MATCH PLAY FORMAT which the vast majority of Americans play and from which they post for handicap purposes! And hole by hole posting for match play golf will overcome these problems entirely and very well may begin to change the fixation of a lots of Americans on "fairness" because of it!!

It's a very interesting overall subject that has certain elments of real complexity but possibly some solutions of real simplicity!!

[Michael Whitaker]

I'm really glad to see this discussion on "fairness."

While I personally feel there can be such a thing as an "unfair" hole design, there might be another explanation for Donald Ross' remarks...

American Heritage gives the following primary definition for "fair":

Of pleasing appearance, especially because of a pure or fresh quality.

Considering the number of years ago the quote was written, or said, there could have been a different intent for claiming the course was the "fairest" of them all!

[THuckaby2]

Amen, Brother Paul.

Any luck getting the USGA to listen re hole-by-hole posting?

I still have reservations re how well this will work in the real world.. the realities of asking people to hit 18 extra keys... but it sure does make a lot of sense anyway and I'd have to guess people will get used to it.

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Tom I --

I'm sorry. I'm trying to understand your Stroke/Match handicap comments -- and am failing in the effort.

Perhaps it would better inform me (and possibly other chowderheads like me -- if any) if you would give us an actual (or hypothetical) match-player's scorecard, hole-by-hole, and show how the current system distorts and your proposed system would not. Then maybe I'd understand.

One, possibly tangential question: Under your proposed system, would players then post 13-hole scores when they win or lose 6 and 5?

Thanks. Dan

[TEPaul]

TomH:

The reality of putting in 18 hole by hole gross scores would be a snap--provided the software and the ergonomics of it are everything it could be. The process would take 5-10 seconds if set up correctly. Is that really too much time to take after a 3-5 hour round (or in the convenience of your own home) to solve every handicap problem known to match play man and rid the world of this niggling problem of "fairness" in match play?

Just think of all the simple and effective ways it could be done? I wouldn't even mind seeing once you've put in your access number and the screen comes up it would first ask the simple question--"Match play or stroke play?"

[THuckaby2]

TEP:  oh, it does make sense and it SEEMS like a snap... I just witness how much trouble people have with the GHIN software as it stands now all too often!  One simply can't overestimate the computer ineptitude of the average golfer.  Thus my doom and gloom feeling here...

I like the stroke or match choice, anyway.

So let's make this all happen!

TH

[TEPaul]

Dan:

You don't understand it--even a little bit? That's very depressing--a smart guy like you. It's too much to go back into again, and it should be in the archives anyway when they come back up on here or else give me a call sometime.

[A_Clay_Man]

I find this ironic. I have never been to #2 but after watching the last open there I'd bet that every pro who had a ball within a few feet of the hole, only to find it well off the green, was muttering to himself how "unfair" it was. Grant it the course is different then it was in 35', but I still think it's highly ironic.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

The GHIN system and its software is complicated but it doesn't need to be. Basically I've always questioned how much the USGA has ever really been into their GHIN system and dedicated to it and its improvement!

You should hear Frank Hannigan on the subject and it's a real wonder that they even instituted it in the first place--he couldn't stand the idea when the USGA instituted it when he was the Exec Director! He thought it would break the USGA. Of course at that time they only had a couple million dollars, a far cry from the load of millions they have now!!

But you have to understand these aren't the most progressive people in the world when it comes to golf--they are into tradition to a large extent and tradition and positive change can be mutually exclusive in their minds, apparently!

I had a long conversation about this kind of handicap thing with Hannigan a few years ago and to my amazement he actually told me that handicapping didn't matter in golf!!

I remember asking him if I actually heard him correctly and he said "you bet you did"!

Hannigan is a bright guy but on this issue I'm sure I'll never know where he's coming from except for out and out antediluvianism!! But heh, it takes all kinds and that's just Frank Hannigan!

But you asked if I've had any luck getting the USGA to listen! Are you joking? They don't want to listen to me because they think I might ask them to change something--AGAIN!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Dan

Don't worry.  I don't understand what The two Tom's are saying (about this topic) and never did.  As TEP adn Casey Stengel said--you could look it up!  And I used to be smart too.......

Cheers

Rich

PS--as for the USGA handicapping sytem--GIGO, as the greeks would say.

PPS--Oops!  "geeks" not "greeks".   Just a little tyop amongst friends.

[TEPaul]

Rich;

I don't for a minute believe that you don't understand what I'm saying here--you're just saying that to be contrary again for contrariness's sake!

But I will say again that your suggestion that the USGA force American golfers to do something that they've never done and very likely never will (play weekly stroke play tournaments for handicaps) although that's the way it's been in Europe for probably 100 years, is the stupidest suggestion yet for the USGA!

I'm sure glad you aren't involved in a European foreign office or the US State Dept or the US and Europe would probably be at war against each other in about a month!

[THuckaby2]

TEP - I forgot how anti-progressive the USGA is in this area... oh well.

And Rich - what's GIGO?  I'm actually kinda proud to say I don't know what that means... I know too much geek stuff as it is!

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV --

GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out.

I thought that was an Accounting expression.

But: Computers, Accounting, Handicaps -- it's all Geek to me!

[TEPaul]

TomH:

Just don't pay any attention to Rich and these ridiculous terms he uses--they don't mean a damn thing at all!

I happen to know what GIGO means to him though but he wouldn't admit it to us.

GIGO is the name Rich gave to some little Italian person he became infatuated with years ago while touring through Italy. The name is GIGO because Rich could never figure out if that little person was a girl or a boy--so he just started call "IT" GIGO!

[THuckaby2]

CLASSIC!  Thanks, guys.

I'm also pretty proud NOT to know accounting terms.  In fact it's a goal of mine to avoid anything of relevance for as long as possible in life.  Thus my affinity for golf discussion groups...  

TH

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tom I

I'm not trying to be contrary, it's just natural.

I've never suggested frog-marching every American golfer to a stroke play tournament every month--I just suggested that the game over there would be better for it if handicaps were based on rounds played under the rules of golf.  My confusion with your and Tom IV's position regarding hole-by-hole posting is this--what difference does it make if you post scores, real or bogus, by your complete discretion, in aggregate or individually?  Garbage is garbage, no matter how you choose to count it!

Rich

PS--Dan, the answer to your question regarding the 6 & 5, 13-hole match posting is that you MUST post and you MUST guess what your scores might have been for the 5 holes you didn't play, according to where the handicap strokes fall.  Isn't that grand?