Need your help demonstrating unpredictable is better than predictable

[Garland Bayley]

I have been reading architectural improvement suggestions for my club. They often support an idea by saying it makes the course more fair. This of course is a misuse of the word fair, because everyone plays the same source, so it is fair to everyone as they all face the same things. What they mean to say is that the suggested idea makes the course more predictable.

I would like to demonstrate that unpredictable is better than predictable. Please post your own pictures (with the implied consent that I can use them in this demonstration at my club) that you feel demonstrate unpredictable is better than predictable. Hopefully demonstrating unpredictable at some of the great courses will help sway some minds. Also, please explain your posting as I may not understand just from the pictures.

The best course I have ever played would have some great examples, but when I took my new camera there when I played it, I confused S (shutter priority mode) with SC (scenery mode) and ended up will all overexposed photos.

Thanks to anyone who would help me in this.

Garland

PS I chose the lamp icon as I am trying to shed some light here.

[Mac Plumart]

I'll think about this and help out as I can...but you might want to look into the Crane/Behr/Mackenize stuff.

[George Freeman]

The best course I have ever played would have some great examples, but when I took my new camera there when I played it, I confused S (shutter priority mode) with SC (scenery mode) and ended up will all overexposed photos.

Sorry for the OT Garland, but what course might that be??

[Garland Bayley]

I'll think about this and help out as I can...but you might want to look into the Crane/Behr/Mackenize stuff.

I'm hoping for pictures saying 1000s of words instead of me boringly droning on about JC and the boys.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Hmm... I think you need to shed some more light on your question ;-)

Generally, unpredictable means that one and the same shot can lead to different results. Some worse than expected, some better. So there is an element of surprise and that makes the game more enjoyable for about half of the people and less enjoyable for the other half.

Go ask yourself this question: what do you like better, a problem or its solution? Do you prefer to get things decided or prefer to stay open to new information and options?

If you like problems, you prefer unpredictable. If you like solutions, you prefer predictable.

Ulrich

[Garland Bayley]

Ulrich,

Can you think of a better characterization? Sure taking it to the extreme of nearly the exact same shot producing different results occurs in situations where there is an undesirable factor like rocks. However, I think average golfers like good surprises when their shots go astray, and aren't too concerned when they get the bad result they expected. The minute minority that know pretty much where their shot will go hate bad surprises, but expect good results when there is no surprise.

I prefer my home course favor the fun of the average player over the total ego satisfaction of the good player.

[JESII]

I prefer my home course favor the fun of the average player over the total ego satisfaction of the good player.

Isn't that what Tom Fazio has been doing all these years???

[Ulrich Mayring]

Garland, you haven't answered my question. Are you the problem man or the solution guy?

I'm certainly a problem person and so I like unpredictability, because it has greater potential. But my girlfriend hates potential, she wants security. How about you? What do you do when a new restaurant opens? Do you rather go to the place you are always going to and where you know it's good or do you go to the new place, because it might just be a tad better?

I'll go to the new restaurant, even if I'll likely have a worse meal than at my usual joint. But it *may* just be better. I like potential and find solutions boring. But I'm just one half of humanity

Ulrich

[Mac Plumart]

Garland...

I am about to pound you with photos of holes that I have liked and most of them have some quirk or are unpredictable...and I will also include some that are predictable/fair.  Although I have enjoyed the "fair" holes, I haven't experienced that exhilleration before, during, and after my swing that I do on the unpredictable holes.  And, of course, I am not an architect but maybe a course should have some straight forward holes/fair holes and some unpredictable holes as well.

Also, I do think pulling a quote or two from Behr or Mackenzie would add a lot to your points/discussion as it would provide instant credibility to your claims.

Anywhere, here is the approach shot on the 14th hole at Secession.  By far, my favorite hole on the course.  



more to come...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Garland,
Play to their gambling nature. Buy each of the members (or at least the greens committee members) one of these......



....and remind them how much fun a surprise is.

Most folks that I know lead rather predictable lives. You'd think it wouldn't be hard to get them to enjoy some unpredictability now and then, especially where it can do them no harm, at play.

[Sean_A]

Garland

I am thinking what you really mean is less predictable is better than more predictable.  All shots under the sun are predictable with enough experience - in theory anyway.  Sure, some are far less predictable than others and to show this I would first have photos where the course is obviously firm.  Then of the firm photos I would focus on the ones where there is at least a bit of micro movement in the ground - think TOC. Another element which makes shots less predictable is elevation change, but this is hard to depict in photos.  Finally, wind makes predictability difficult, but that too is hard to depict in photos.    

Here is an example of micro-undulations which make shot prediction very difficult other than to know if one flies the green he will likely be chipping back.  The problem with this sort of design is many folks don't want to play it on a daily basis - they just can't take the difficult to predict nature of this sort of golf.  


So you could go to more macro-undulations which are a sort of compromise because with these sorts of land formations it is definitely easier to predict what will happen, but generally this sort of thing is far more dramatic than micro-undulations.  It sort of fits the looks hard plays easier mode of design.  




You could also move into undulations which are so large as to create blind shots. However, this too is difficult to depict in photos and it has the added issue of many folks not really going for blind shots.  

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Ok...

my last post showed an interesting/exciting approach...here is one that is certainly fair and predictable, but not as exciting...



And here is a green that is very fair...but so "fair" that no matter where I hit the green I two putt from with very little problem.  I can be 60 feet, 30 feet, or 10 feet and I will do no worse than 2 putt.  Is that what golfers want?



Now here is a green I've heard many, many people complain is unfair.  But I LOVE it.  Unpredictable, exciting, fun.



I can look for fair tee shots vs. exiting/unpredicatable tee shots if you want.  Just let me know.

[Garland Bayley]

Ulrich,

I like problems.

[Ulrich Mayring]

So now go ask the guys in the club... I bet you that most of them, who want "fair" courses, like solutions...

I don't think you're ever going to be able to reconcile these opposing tendencies.

Ulrich

[Garland Bayley]

So now go ask the guys in the club... I bet you that most of them, who want "fair" courses, like solutions...

I don't think you're ever going to be able to reconcile these opposing tendencies.

Ulrich

But hopefully sometimes I can get away from the Joshua Crane equal bunkers right and left mentality.
That is why pictures from Dr. M courses will probably suit my objective better than pictures from RTJ courses.
Unless of course I use RTJ to demonstrate more predictability.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Garland

I attach a couple of photos which I believe portrays exactly what you mean.

The first one is a great course with many birdies


The second is the result of killing worms on our courses although some say its the remains of a large Island Green with the Green way in the distance. The water evaporated away or players never bothered returning the divots, many represent the future of golf as clearly the site was not fit for purpose in the first place.


I could of course totally misunderstood your post and the intentions behind it, but what the hell

Melvyn

PS The above study is based upon much research on the American style and design content (apparently)

[Garland Bayley]

PONDS! PONDS! I ask you for unpredictable and you give me PONDS Melvyn!

What happened to "Greens surrounded in water, just what the hell is good in a course with water hazards. They are no good to man or beast and quite frankly can kill the thrill of a game of golf stone dead?"

The only thing unpredictable is you Melvyn! Ponds are predictable! They signal a water grave! You Melvyn can't be trusted to make a serious post to save your life! Anthony, a habitual divorcer is going to divorce you if you are not careful!





PS Thanks for making my day. I did a LOL on that one. Thats LOL (lots of love) 

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't have photos, but perhaps someone could post some images of NGLA #s 3 and 4. How about the big mound in front of the green at #4 at the Old Course. The bunker in the middle of number 6 at Riviera. The boomerang green at Crystal Downs. The Dell hole at Lahinch. Number 4 at Cruden Bay. Practically any hole at White Bear Yacht Club.

[Philippe Binette]

Isn't it what made Mona Lisa a great painting

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Garland:

I suppose you're looking for parkland examples, but why not pinch some photos from Kyle's pictorial tour of Scotland? There are some excellent examples of unpredictability in those threads. You could use the argument that it's the sheer unpredictability of these courses that makes them renowned throughout the golfing world.

Dónal.

[Jon Wiggett]

Garland,

You get a predictable result at noughts & crosses (tic-tac-toe is what the americans call it I think ) and how many clubs do you know playing that game?

Fortunately, players like unpredictable because it brings a gambling element to the shot that heightens the excitment/tension. If the shot goes well, it is their skill that has won the day . If the shot goes goes badly, lady luck was against them . Either way you haven't lost. Although many players talk about fairness (ie. flatness for most) they also find this flatness boring as it has no gambling element and if the shot goes wrong then there is nothing else to blame except lack of ability to execute the shot.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Tic-Tac-Toe is a simplistic game, but how about chess?

Say you move your rook two squares to the left, would it be more fun for you if it sometimes ended up only one or even three squares to the left?

Ulrich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Garland

I am thinking what you really mean is less predictable is better than more predictable.  All shots under the sun are predictable with enough experience - in theory anyway.  Sure, some are far less predictable than others and to show this I would first have photos where the course is obviously firm.  Then of the firm photos I would focus on the ones where there is at least a bit of micro movement in the ground - think TOC. Another element which makes shots less predictable is elevation change, but this is hard to depict in photos.  Finally, wind makes predictability difficult, but that too is hard to depict in photos.     

Here is an example of micro-undulations which make shot prediction very difficult other than to know if one flies the green he will likely be chipping back.  The problem with this sort of design is many folks don't want to play it on a daily basis - they just can't take the difficult to predict nature of this sort of golf.   


So you could go to more macro-undulations which are a sort of compromise because with these sorts of land formations it is definitely easier to predict what will happen, but generally this sort of thing is far more dramatic than micro-undulations.  It sort of fits the looks hard plays easier mode of design. 




You could also move into undulations which are so large as to create blind shots. However, this too is difficult to depict in photos and it has the added issue of many folks not really going for blind shots. 

Ciao

Sean,

Interesting but my first thought is that the gambler is conditioned to think he will lose (by experience) which makes the surprise fun.  I would think a golfer would approach every hole in a match thinking he has a 50% chance of winning, maybe more, thus reducing the thrill of the pleasant surprise.  Just a guess.

That said, I have more than once described my design philosophy in similar terms. I once played a pro - am with Fuzzy Zoeller who hit one way right only to see it hit a mound and bouce on the green.  The whole time the ball is in the air he is muttering....Oh shit, Oh shit, ......Oh shit, its PERFECT!   So, I do try to put some OS, OS, OSIP shots in each design with kick in banks, etc.  If I were Garland, I would use this story because if a famous pro says they like the feeling, it seems to carry more weight.

Of course, the corrollary question would be, how long until someone starts demanding more fairness in random bounces?

[Sean_A]

Garland

I am thinking what you really mean is less predictable is better than more predictable.  All shots under the sun are predictable with enough experience - in theory anyway.  Sure, some are far less predictable than others and to show this I would first have photos where the course is obviously firm.  Then of the firm photos I would focus on the ones where there is at least a bit of micro movement in the ground - think TOC. Another element which makes shots less predictable is elevation change, but this is hard to depict in photos.  Finally, wind makes predictability difficult, but that too is hard to depict in photos.     

Here is an example of micro-undulations which make shot prediction very difficult other than to know if one flies the green he will likely be chipping back.  The problem with this sort of design is many folks don't want to play it on a daily basis - they just can't take the difficult to predict nature of this sort of golf.   


So you could go to more macro-undulations which are a sort of compromise because with these sorts of land formations it is definitely easier to predict what will happen, but generally this sort of thing is far more dramatic than micro-undulations.  It sort of fits the looks hard plays easier mode of design. 




You could also move into undulations which are so large as to create blind shots. However, this too is difficult to depict in photos and it has the added issue of many folks not really going for blind shots. 

Ciao

Sean,

Interesting but my first thought is that the gambler is conditioned to think he will lose (by experience) which makes the surprise fun.  I would think a golfer would approach every hole in a match thinking he has a 50% chance of winning, maybe more, thus reducing the thrill of the pleasant surprise.  Just a guess.

That said, I have more than once described my design philosophy in similar terms. I once played a pro - am with Fuzzy Zoeller who hit one way right only to see it hit a mound and bouce on the green.  The whole time the ball is in the air he is muttering....Oh shit, Oh shit, ......Oh shit, its PERFECT!   So, I do try to put some OS, OS, OSIP shots in each design with kick in banks, etc.  If I were Garland, I would use this story because if a famous pro says they like the feeling, it seems to carry more weight.

Of course, the corrollary question would be, how long until someone starts demanding more fairness in random bounces?

Jeff

You missed my point.  The bounces aren't random.  They are predictable.  Its not as if physics suddenly doesn't apply.   The bounces only seem random for the less experienced or in the very rare instance, too difficult to predict even with loads of experience.  But I can probably count this type of occurrence on one hand if we are sticking strictly to design elements and not bringing non-design elements such as weather into the equation.  If we are gonna call the bounces random in an area of micro-undulations we can also say they are random in an area of macro-undulations, but then that would mean the randomness of the result is really dependent on who is predicting.  Of course this is bunk.  Mind you, because we can create harder to predict situations doesn't mean that most golfers relish these sorts of shots.  I spose its like anything in golf design, in moderation, many golfers will accept it even if they don't like it.  From my PoV, it is one of the few ways we can combat the length of the flat bellies without resorting to creating courses that are stupid long.

Ciao 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

While theoetically all roll is predictable, I am not sure bounces are due to differences in spin, etc.  For that matter, the real issue as the contours get more random is whether a golfer could land a shot on any of those little knobs, esp. in photo 1, which IMHO is just a crappy design or condition.

I relooked at the other photos, esp. no. 3 and I may be wrong, but those random contours appear to smooth out a few yards in front of the green, probably intentionally to allow the shot to roll up from the front out of necessity.  I think most people would probably do the same, as I don't think total or reduced predictablility encourages the ground game.  In other words, a general (but not perfectly constant) slope one way or the other is probably required to encourage some one to "play it here to get it there."

In photo 1, the only real option is to fly it at the green.  The mico contours have to be such that they can be used somewhat predictably used or a thinking/strategic golfer won't take the chance.