Luck

[Adam Clayman]

Over the years, luck has been mentioned with disdain. Comments that espouse removing the concept, to identify the best player,  has been heard from many of the posters on this board.

For those of you who believe Luck has no place on the golf course, would you mind responding wth your thoughts on the following?

The element of luck, as it presents itself on our famous courses, is an essential attribute of the game at its best. TOM SIMPSON

From GeoffShackelford.com

[Matt_Cohn]

Maybe it's got something to do with the Unified Theory.

That is, in the absence of luck, we know very quickly what's going to happen to our golf ball. The ball might travel for 8 seconds, but only the first 1.5 seconds have any supsense. The last 6.5 seconds may as well not happen.

Consider that when most players stripe a tee shot into a flat fairway, they pick up the tee and walk away immediately. There's no need to watch if there's no question where it's going.

Throw a little luck in there, and the whole 8 seconds becomes an adventure.

[Bill_McBride]

There's not a lot of luck involved when a course is set up and maintained like Royal Montreal (or Royal Melbourne, as Johnny managed to call it once) for the President's Cup.  Soft fairways, soft greens, target golf at the highest level.  Luck is not a factor, skill is everything.

Contrast this with a hard, fast links with rumpled fairways and fairway bunkers that are actually part of the fairway.  Steep, irregular slopes in those fairways that can funnel one tee ball into a fairway bunker and another into the garden spot.  Luck is a factor at all times.  The greens are hard.  Sometimes you get a lucky bounce, sometimes you don't.

Which would you prefer to play?  

[John Kavanaugh]

Adam,

Please give one example of when a single poster on this site has come out against luck.

[Doug Ralston]

In this I think golf is like poker, and unlike chess.

Poker has a healthy slice of luck, but also a certain degree of skill/understanding/insight.  Like golf, the idea for determining 'greatness' comes with the ability to minimize the degree that luck mitigates results, so that skills are measured.

In chess, luck plays only the smallest part in determining results ......... what randomness exists is mostly subsumed by the array of skills displayed by the competitors. This may be the GOAL for PGA Pros, but hardly any circumstance will exist comparable. Still, I think most Pros with confidence in their abilities would prefer courses where luck is minimized.

As for the rest of us ..... obviously with less skill the part of luck is enhanced proportionally.

Doug

[Bob Jenkins]

Bill,

I remember when Tiger went around TOC for four days in 2000 and as I recall, did not end up in a single bunker.

In spite of the quirks and bounces and the number and location of bunkers, he found none!!!

I do not believe that had a lot to do with luck but am equally certain he probably had a few "lucky" bounces.

Skill reduces the need to rely on luck. If I can hit is where I want and my judgment as to location is good, no luck is necessary. It is simply an allocation of risk.

Personally, I need as much luck as I can get and it does matter with someone like me. I will take chances Tiger and others never need to take and in some cases I will be lucky enough to pull it off.

Regards,

[Gib_Papazian]

I feel like a broken record, but it still comes down to whether you play the game as a whimsical adventure or an objective examination.

I only object to something being "unfair" if it is impossible for the average player to complete the hole, or presents such a difficult shot that a small miss results in a lost ball in the water (read: Par-5, 6th at Grand Cypress South).

It has been my experience that really fine tournament players are more susceptible to cries about fairness because they are scorecard and pencil players by definition and define themselves as golfers with a number.  

[Lloyd_Cole]

I feel like a broken record, but it still comes down to whether you play the game as a whimsical adventure or an objective examination.

I think one can take it further than that. The element of luck or 'rub of the green' is an essential element of the game. The mature golfer accepts the unlucky bounce, and acknowkedges (if only to oneself) that it was indeed a badly hit putt that just gave him a birdie. To remove luck leaves us with something other than golf.

[Bill Gayne]

I think luck and humor go together. To accept both good and bad luck on the golf course the player needs to be able to laugh and accept the result for what it is and go on to the next shot.

[Mike Hendren]

If luck is an essential element, how does the architect design it?

[Bill_McBride]

If luck is an essential element, how does the architect design it?

Not flat and soft, although I guess the architect may not have much to do about the soft part.

[Bob Jenkins]

Bill,

Totally agree on the humour point. ( I am Canadian so humour is spelled with two "u's") Problem is that when we hit what we think is a good shot and it bounces into trouble, it does not leave me thinking how much I love the bounces.

I think, though, that what appears to be a bad bounce is often a mistake on my part re not judging distance, not knowing the hole, etc. Knowledge and skill tends to do away with luck.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I think luck and humor go together. To accept both good and bad luck on the golf course the player needs to be able to laugh and accept the result for what it is and go on to the next shot.

Bill
I think humour is key to almost everyhing and I'm sure that without it I would have jumped off of something many years ago.
However, I do not think that it is essential in dealing with luck, although it certainly helps. Mostly one needs only to realise that the world does not revolve around oneself. Sadly, many a young and talented golfer takes many a year to figure this out.

[Gib_Papazian]

How does an architect "design"the element of luck? A good start might be to try and place at least one random hazard in every hole - hopefully within the interior boundaries of what would be the most common line of play.

There is a wonderful little knob jutting out in front of the 9th green at Olympic Lake. Can you utilize it to direct you ball when running the ball onto the putting surface? Yes.

Yet, in practical application, it is only two paces wide and can kick a running approach onto the putting surface - or occasionally careening into a bunker or worse.

"Pay your ticket, take the ride wherever it takes you."

-Hunter Thompson

[Lloyd_Cole]

Sean

Wind and ground conditions cannot be budgeted for on all occasions. Yesterday I played our second hole and noted that the fairway was especially hard resulting in my second shot being a club less than I expected. On the next hole, a 5 par, on which one must take advantage of the fairway contours (like a slice version of Augusta #10) in order to reach the green in two, I hit an excellent drive and walked after it in keen anticipation of the next shot and another good hole (I had just birdied #2, which I almost never do). This fairway seems awfully lush, I thought, sure enough it was much softer than #2 and my ball was not far enough out, so I was forced to lay up. It is not normal for these two fairways to be so different in condition. What is that, if not luck?

[Evan Fleisher]

Maybe it's got something to do with the Unified Theory.

That is, in the absence of luck, we know very quickly what's going to happen to our golf ball. The ball might travel for 8 seconds, but only the first 1.5 seconds have any supsense. The last 6.5 seconds may as well not happen.

Consider that when most players stripe a tee shot into a flat fairway, they pick up the tee and walk away immediately. There's no need to watch if there's no question where it's going.

Throw a little luck in there, and the whole 8 seconds becomes an adventure.

Interesting Matt!  This past weekend I was playing golf down near Canton at a new course called the Quarry Golf Club.  On the 11th hole (a par-5) I hit my tee shot "pure" right down the center of the fairway and simply bent over to grab my tee never thinking anything else at the moment.  There was a lake running down the left side of the fairway but I knew my tee shot was straight and pure without a doubt in the middle of the fairway.

As I approached the expected landing area of my tee shot I could not find a ball anywhere!  I continued down the fairway (as it was somewhat rumpled...thought it might be over the next hill) but to no avail.  Ultimately I did find my ball...about 2 feet from the edge of the pond!  That tee shot had careened (sp?) down the fairway and somehow gotten off line and ran down the lake's embankment.  Luckily for me, a "lefty" stance was available and I simply hit a lay-up shot to put myself in position for my third shot to the green.

It never dawned on me (after I hit such a great tee shot) that the water would even come into play...but a deceptive fairway and a bit of luck (both bad and good) changed they way I viewed that hole.

[JESII]

There is no luck in golf...every wierd bounce would repeat itself exactly the same if you were able to hit exactly the same shot and land it in exactly the same spot...I guarantee it.

People just don't know their courses as well as they think.

[Padraig Dooley]

There is no luck in golf...every wierd bounce would repeat itself exactly the same if you were able to hit exactly the same shot and land it in exactly the same spot...I guarantee it.

People just don't know their courses as well as they think.

This would only happen if the conditions were the same for both shots, wind, temperature, humidity. Having two identical swings, possible, controlling the conditions, unlikely.

[Peter Pallotta]

JES
I think I understand what you're saying, and I think you're right. But then what would you make of the Simpson quote that starts this thread? What is the nature of the 'essential attribute' he's referring to?

My two cents - I think the term 'apparent randomness' is maybe a better one than 'luck'. But also, I think that in golf (more than in any other sport), that apparent randomness is very, very close to effective randomness (i.e. luck).

e.g. From 250 yards out, is any player skillful enough to hit a little knob in the fairway in exactly the way he wants, i.e. in the exact spot and with the exact trajectory? If not, then two players can both hit exceptionally good shots, only to have one bounce off the knob to the right and into the fairway, and the other bounce off to the left, into the rough.

Those two bounces could've been predicted, but since there's almost nothing anyone can do - skill-wise -- with that prediction/information, the apparent randomness becomes quite real in practice.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

It boils down to the mysteries of golf and whether one embraces those mysteries or is too self-absorbed. Those making a living at Golf shouldn't be excluded from enjoying a little mystery every now and then. It's how one handles the good and bad fortune on any specific shot that identifies their character and make-up.

John K,
 No. No need to embarrass those who pontificate they know best.

[Dan Boerger]

To me, good shots should be rewarded "most of the time" and bad shots penalized "most of the time".

Now, we are going down the slippery slope of "degree of". To exaggerate this point, make the fairways at the next US Open 10 yards wide from 150 to 350 yards off the tee. I'll suggest we'll be elevating the element of luck to a degree that makes the game silly and one I would have little interest in watching or playing.

[JESII]

Padraig and Peter,

You have both seen through my words to the next step...because it is in fact ludicrous to suggest one could exactly replicate a shot to the inch with identical conditions to confirm that you would, in fact, get the identical bounce it is IMO ludicrous to discuss how two different shots bounce differently...

Adam,

That was no meant to minimize your thread because I think it is a worthy topic...even if I do agree with Kavanaugh that this site is about the last place you'll find preaching about the need for fairness (or LUCK)...I just think people don't pay proper attention to enough details while on the golf course.

I understand that because I am a good player I will be targeted for many of the crimes against the core beliefs of this board...so let me make my position clear...

1) No matter your level of play, if you're not trying to get the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible, you're not playing golf...
   1a) The only caveat is if you're trying out different routes that might be advantageous at some later date...

2) The best way to shave strokes is by using your eyes to find the soft spots on a hole/course that fit your game...this is the extent of my GCA analysis...I don't pay attention to bunkers 150 off the tee, but have no problem with them being there for someone else...
   2a) No matter what many of you say, I think it is virtually impossible for one golfer to understand exactly how a course affects another player so it's a hollow argument to tell me it's a flaw of mine tha I cannot understand how a course plays for a 15 handicapper...

3) There are no rules, just give me interesting shots and I'll try to hit them. I don't think anyone is "ENTITLED" to anything on the golf course, but if it's not interesting people will not become hooked as I have...

[Peter Pallotta]

It just struck me that, of course, if you REMOVED that little knob in the fairway 250 yards out, you'd go a long way to reducing/minimizing the randomness, both apparent and effective.

But I'm all set now in any event, cause I have JES' tip about looking for the 'soft spots' on the hole/course. Nice way to phrase that, JES - thanks.

Peter

[BCrosby]

But I'm all set now in any event, cause I have JES' tip about looking for the 'soft spots' on the hole/course. Nice way to phrase that, JES - thanks.

But on a well designed strategic course, aren't the "soft" spots also the "hard" spots?

Bob

[BCrosby]

"What people really mean when they say "good or bad luck" is that the shot didn't turn out as expected."

Well put. Luck is what happens when the outcomes you would normally predict for a given shot don't, in fact, occur.

Many people have promoted the elimination of luck, from J. Crane to J.H. Taylor to the USGA in its set-up philosophies.

The elimination of luck - not mere difficulty - is the main goal of penal theories of gca. Penal architecture is built on the notion of equitable outcomes.

Bob