[Roger Wolfe]

I have heard the word, "unfair" used time and time again.  Should this word really apply to GCA?  Or should it only apply to the actions of someone other than the architect (USGA tournament committee... greens superintendent... etc).

Was the pin placement at Olympic Club in 1998 "unfair?"  I know fifty other golfers made birdie or par on that hole.  Should Payne have known not to hit it right of the hole?  Should he have made every effort to hit it short or left?  Was that obviously an "unpinnable" location on that green?  Or was it only "unfair" if you hit it to the wrong side of the green?

Was the condition of the Redan at Shinnecock in 2004 "unfair?"  Was a golfer unable to hit it to a spot where he could two putt?  Once his ball ended up in a bad spot... should he have "taken his medicine" and putted to another spot where he could safely two putt or was it OK to try to make it or two putt from where is tee shot landed... although it was obviously impossible to keep it on the green if he made the slightest error.

Was the mowing pattern at Bethpaige #10 in 2002 "unfair" since some of the field could not reach the fairway AND did not have a bailout area?  Perhaps.

I just don't like the word, "unfair."  Everyone plays the same course... everyone has to navigate the same hazards... everyone knows what part of the fairway or green you should avoid at all costs.  If you choose to take a risk... that is your choice alone.  But I don't think the word "unfair" should apply to any design.

[JC Jones]

My main man Roger -

I think when people use the term unfair they are saying one of two things; either a) the feature on the course (i.e. buried elephant in a certain green or 250 yard carry over water for tee shot) or b) the maintenance of the course (like the examples you stated - mowing patterns, pin placements, etc) are such that they (the speaker) found it to be unreasonably difficult.

People often make these statements based on their own personal experience or score and because they were unable to manage the feature they project that difficulty on to the rest of the golfers playing that course.  This is probably especially so when they have encountered other features which they deemed to be difficult but were able to manage.

Or, as you so rightly pointed out, they make the statement using the availability heuristic.  That is, if they can remember it, it must be that way.  Your example of Payne Stewart is spot on.  They can remember his situation and automatically assume it was unfair.  The problem is that the statement is made without the actual information, only that which is available to them.  So perhaps, if they knew that 50 other golfers birdied the hole they wouldn't feel the same way.

So, you're question is apt.  What does "unfair" mean when often times people don't have the capability of determining, that is they don't have enough knowledge (haven't gathered enough information), whether the difficulty managing the feature is/was widespread.

[Tim Bert]

I am in the camp of "unfair" is a mostly meaningless word in this game because one of two situations exist:

1) you are playing against a field or another player that is facing the same course setup as you and all that matters is your relative position to others

or

2) you are playing for yourself or by yourself and then who gives a crap because how the heck can something be unfair when only one person is involved...

The only exception I'd make to twitching at the mention of the word unfair in golf is when the hand of man (I'm ok with nature intervening because it is an outdoor game and weather is luck of the draw) intervenes to create different conditions for different players - like watering the green at Shinnecock after the first few groups have already played.  I could accept someone calling that unfair to the groups that passed through before the watering began.

Here's some reference material from the old days if you'd like to see what some others think:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7510.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3636.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,12189.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,2278.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,1421.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,14953.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,5470.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,3196.0/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,5620.0/

[Ken Moum]

I have long thought that unfair has no place in describing anything about golf... unless you just want to say that the game is inherently unfair.

My preferred term is "unreasonable."

For instance, I think it's unreasonable to ask golfer to putt on greens where the ball won't stop by the hole, even if you're putting uphill.

Cutting a cup at the bottom of a green steep green, so that no one has a chance to hit it below the hole, is unreasonable.

It unreasonable to make fairways ultra narrow. When the only way to hit them is by giving up so much yardage per shot that no one could reach a green in regulation you've exceeded my reasonableness limits.  Of course that width varies depending on who's playing--a Tour stop can probably make them narower than my home course.

Blind holes withhidden trouble on a daily fee or resport course are unreasonable--most people won'tplay it enough times to figure it out.

Ken

[Tom_Doak]

Ken:

I understand what you are saying, but if you're having a bad day you might find a lot of things at North Berwick unreasonable ... and you would be missing the boat completely.

Roger:

I really avoid the word "unfair" because it is most often deployed by players and just amounts to sour grapes.

Truly "unfair" golf is nearly always a combination of the actual design, the course set-up, and the weather.  And no designer can really foolproof the possibilities of the latter two, without making his work pretty boring.

I'd rather risk cries of unfairness than yawns of boredom.  Or, as Pete Dye said to the press during the first TPC event at Sawgrass, "As long as no one says it's too dull or too easy, they can criticize whatever they want."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Roger,

Do you want the real definition of "unfair" as it relates to golf courses at private clubs ?

If you do, it's as follows.

Unfair is a feature or golfing circumstance that has had a negative impact on the golfer/complainers game and/or wallet.

Therefore, that feature or golfing circumstance must be altered such that it's in harmony with the golfer/complainers game.

The problem is that once a feature or golfing circumstance is altered for one golfer, then other features and/or golfing circumstances that have a negative impact on other golfer's games and/or wallets is fair game for alteration.

Like the domino theory, once one feature or golfing circumstance falls, it's open season on all other features and/or golfing circumstances, and then, the course begins to be surgically altered such that it loses that which distinquished it from all others, it's unique charcacter.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Sean_A]

Unfair more or less means people don't like something.  Usually the reason they don't like a particular feature is down to felling hard done by.  I don't know why folks just they don't like something rather couching their dislike in some sort of fairness (I have a right due to certain expectations) argument.  What is so wrong about not liking something?  Afterall, this is how blind shots were nearly wiped off the face of golf - too many golfers don't like them.  However, to me, the archie needs to include controversial features in every design because the goal of gca ishould be to challenge in a fun way.  Part of challenging is facing shots we don't find comfortable.  Some folks think part of fun is facing some shots they feel comfortable with.  Either way, archietecture needs the features which are so often called unfair only the archie has to find the right balance - that in a nutshell is why the concept of professional gca exists.  Otherwise, we can have Tom, Dick or Harry design courses and then "experts" build them.  In fact, that is how it feels a lot of courses were designed - to never upset the golfer (almost as if the golfer has no control over his emotions).  What a load of bollocks. 


Ciao

[John Moore II]

I have long thought that unfair has no place in describing anything about golf... unless you just want to say that the game is inherently unfair.

My preferred term is "unreasonable."

For instance, I think it's unreasonable to ask golfer to putt on greens where the ball won't stop by the hole, even if you're putting uphill.

Cutting a cup at the bottom of a green steep green, so that no one has a chance to hit it below the hole, is unreasonable.

It unreasonable to make fairways ultra narrow. When the only way to hit them is by giving up so much yardage per shot that no one could reach a green in regulation you've exceeded my reasonableness limits.  Of course that width varies depending on who's playing--a Tour stop can probably make them narower than my home course.

Blind holes withhidden trouble on a daily fee or resport course are unreasonable--most people won'tplay it enough times to figure it out.

Ken

I agree with most of this. I think ultra-fast very undulated greens certainly border on unreasonable/unfair. Much of this depends on the course though. An inland course can get away with pushing the edge more than a seaside course because of less weather variables. If the wind gets up to 25-30 mph or more, a lot of stuff can get unreasonable/unfair, whichever word you want to use.

[Ronald Montesano]

I've brandished that word more as a shield than a sword on this site, but reading these comments allows me to recognize that I behaved as nothing more than a complainer.  I think that, deep down, every golfer wants to shoot his (can't speak for the ladies) best score on every given day.  The more important the round (tournament, with friends, on a special/new course) is, the more important that number becomes.  Whichever hole(s) derail(s) the low round (1-18, pick a number(s)), the more likely I am to examine the perceived fairness of that hole.

I've played the Concord Monster in the Catskills from the tips and it is relentless in the carries and angles it demands; I have teed it up at Kaluhyat at Turning Stone from the Tigers and it is adamant about presenting as much gunge to carry or channel, in as many situations, as possible.  I have struck shot after shot at Saratoga National and Devil's Hopyard from the long decks and they are both incurably inexorable in their appeals for precision through the green.

Billy Joel sang of a New York State of Mind; nowhere is the state of mind more critical than in the preparation stage for a round on a particularly challenging course, a round in a particularly revealing event, or a round with a particularly important grouping.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ronald,

This is maybe semantics, but I have always said that most golfers want to shoot their average score when they play, not their best score.  And most in the golf industry will say that an every day course should let them shoot that, or it will not be popular.  On the other hand, I can't actually think of any golfer I have ever known who sought out very easy courses so he could go to the office Monday and brag about his personal best without telling people it was a par 3 course, or whatever. 

The point is how much we personalize the difficulty of a course to our game.  And, how much we take credit for the good scores, but blame the course for the bad ones.

In that vein, any time a course costs your opponent a much needed stroke, its rub of the green, but if the course costs you a much needed stroke, its unfair.

In a more serious vein, I do think there are some things that are unfair, a la Ken Moun's post.  Basically, if the rules set up a par, then a hole that could not be played in par figures by any combo of shots probably isn't fair.  To me, that would include things like dogleg par 3's through the woods, silly narrow fairways, silly contours where the hole has to intercept the ball to keep a putt close (we should be able to get every putt closer to the hole, no?) and forced carries beyond the ability of the golfer are all unfair.

I think most agree with that, but the debate is in more of the grey areas

- is a 250 yard par 3 fair (yes, if from the white tees, no from the back tees)
- is a small green on a 230 yard approach shot fair (yes, but slightly more so on a reachable par 5 than par 4)
- is being in a bunker behind a tree fair? (I think so, but many say double jeapordy that makes advancing the ball towards the green impossible)
- is a fw that is so narrow and sloped that a ball won't hold it with any shot unfair?  Is a fw that is narrow and sloped so that ONLY a high fade cut into the bank unfair?

I am sure we can all fill in the blanks.  Most of the above are reasonable, in limited quantities.  I still think many here tend to argue for the exceptions that keep golf from being standardized, but Tim Nugent's dad had the right answer.  You may want a few difficult or unfair (to many) shots on a course, but if you allow too many, pretty soon the course goes from unique challenge to goofy disaster.  IMHO, it can do so quickly, explaining why gca's may tend to shy away from the crossover point.

[Steve Salmen]

Isn't unfair just the opposite of fair? If you believe that one golf course has a degree of fairness (that is less than 100%), then don't you necessarily believe that there is at least some degree of unfairness?

Semantics and rub of the green aside, I've always thought that fair means that good shots are rewarded with good outcomes and poor ones with poor outcomes.  Rub of the green meaning you're as likely to get a good outcome from a poor shot as a poor outcome from a good shot.

To me an unfair golf course would be one that consistently punishes good shots.

[Mac Plumart]

Jeff B...

great post and super food for thought.

You are on fire lately.  What has gotten into you?!?!?

Seriously, thanks...good stuff!

[Jeff_Brauer]

You can sure get into a debate about what a good shot is, too. The most common one is one that hits the green and rolls off.  Was it a good shot if it didn't have enough backspin or allow enough roll out?  

I have also heard retaining walls in front of greens by a pond called unfair when a shot hit the wall and bounced back in the water.  Most golfers seemingly figure that if it was a grass bank, it would have bounded up on the green or at least gotten the Freddy Couples treatment and stopped rolling back into the water.  Statistically, I think either is improbable on a steep bank rather than retaining wall, but I guess hope springs eternal in golfers.......

We can also debate the meaning of reward.  Think of a typical US Open set up where par is standard.  If you hit two good shots and are on the green, most would say you should have a chance at birdie, but if the greens are lightning fast and you are most likely to two putt, is there enough reward?  (obviously, the Open is different than every day play)

I heard Jack Nicklaus say once that the course should never hurt you, causing you to lose a stroke because of design rather than bad shots.  I would say that is the crux of the basic definition of fair to most.  Not that it solves any debate, because a rolling green might keep a poor putter from ever making par, which to him would seem unfair.

I have heard other elite golfers say a course should always let you fire at the flag to display your skills (similar to the JN statement, but I tend to disagree with "always") while others would say that, with the proviso that you are in the fw.  I think the last type of statement is the crux of the argument here.  When golfers complain that they should have an equal chance of birdie from the rough or hazard as from the fw, basically, anything other than a dart board would be considered unfair.

When I am designing a real course, rather than a theoretical one, I try to consider those general parameters.  If a good golfer has a long iron in his hand, what kind of green is required to allow a good shot from the fw to hit the green?  It gets down to how big, how much up slope, how it relates to the wind, ground slope, etc., and I have sometimes debated whether a green ought to have an upslope of 1.5% or 1.8% to "be fair." I try hard, but I don't obsess about it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff B...

great post and super food for thought.

You are on fire lately.  What has gotten into you?!?!?

Seriously, thanks...good stuff!

Mac,

Thanks.  Most here equate a man with a plaid coat to a dumb blonde, and probably think the comparison is unfair to the blonde..........but secretly, behind this goofy facade, I am a deep thinker!

[Tom_Doak]

I remembered this morning that in my first book I took the opinion that no one shot presented to a golfer was really unfair, but that it was unfair of an architect to demand the same shot [or punish the same miss] repeatedly through a round.

[Peter Pallotta]

We have discussed this quite a bit over the years. One angle is the question of a course's fairness across the broadest spectrum of golfing ability. Another is whether there is an implicit assumption of an equitable exchange between the architect and the golfer as he steps onto the first tee.

Yes - more good posts, Jeff. Btw, I don't think I've ever met a dumb blonde.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

There seem to be many courses that demand the same shot over and over again - whether straight and long tee shots at Medinah No.3 to repeated water carries at any number of Florida courses, like Doral.  I would agree with your earlier post and call it unreasonable.  Or at least, not much fun, and not good architecture because of lack of variety.  But not unfair since people do seem to finish rounds there on a regular basis and go back for more.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

Your "broad spectrum" comment reminds me of the story of a gca who had remodeled a well known tournament course and went back to visit.  He had put a bunker right in front of the par 3 9th hole.

As it happens, while he was looking at that green a group of ladies were playing and recognized him.  They told him that the bunker couldn't be carried from the forward tees and was too deep to play out of forward - and playing backwards meant playing back into the pond that fronted the bunker.  They said that the hole basically ended their round because they couldn't play it.

The gca responded (in an entirely non PC way) "Ladies, had I known that, I would have put that bunker on the first hole!"

[Roger Wolfe]

I posted my comment because we are knee deep in our member guest plus the course and greens are just wonderful right now.  The fairways are tightly cut and the greens are smooth as glass.  Our 7th hole at Carolina Golf Club features an uphill approach shot to a moderately undulating green with about a 6 foot false front.  One of our favorite pin placements is front left about 10 feet off the edge of the false front.  There is also a slight backstop behind the pin.  This creates several scenarios that drive our members / guests / players insane regardless of handicap or experience.  Most shots hit to the green are within 150 yards.

1.  Shot lands on the pin WITH spin, it runs off the false front and down the fairway.
2.  Shot 5 yards past the pin WITH spin, it caroms off the backstop, rolls past the pin, down the false front, and down the fairway.
3.  Miss the green short.  You better chip over that false front or it rolls back off to your feet OR 40 feet behind you at the bottom of the fairway.
4.  Miss the green right... you better chip above the false front OR below the backstop or the ball might start heading left... catch the edge of false front... then roll down the fairway.
5.  Miss the green long... you better chip carefully because too much speed will catch the backstop slope, rolls past the pin, roll down the fairway.
6.  If your ball lies above the backstop on the green... you need a delicate putt to prevent it from rolling down the fairway.

I have seen a touring pro make 7 dealing with that pin.  I have seen a two time club champion make 8 chipping and putting back and forth across the green.  I have seen a 75 year lady in the nine hole group chip it past the hole and down the fairway and immediately walk off the green to her bag and continue to 8 tee.  I have seen regular members just butcher that hole.  It reminds me of the Sunday pin on #9 at ANGC.

On the flip side, I have seen our club pro, Jeffrey Peck, hit a "dead hand" knuckleball wedge that stops next to the pin 80% of the time.  I have also seen another club champion always aim right of the pin to the flat side of the green and just try to make a 15 foot putt.

If I hear that pin is "unfair" one more time my head might explode.  The same goes for GCA... there is no such thing as "unfair" because the entire field has to deal with whatever feature you deem "unfair."  Lately our firm and fast conditions plus the speed of the greens has really helped to showcase that pin placement (my personal favorite) as a true test of golf.  Thanks to everyone for some great replies!!

[Roger Wolfe]

Now there is one hole at Arcadia that I think might qualify as "extremely challenging" for anyone who cannot hit a 190 yard iron with spin.  #13 is a 190 yard par three over a 50 foot gorge with two massive stacked sod bunkers between the edge of the ravine and the green.  There is a wooden walkway immediately to the right of the bunker from the cart path and gorse and other vicious rough right of the green and behind the wooden walkway. 

Being relatively short I had three different experiences the three times I played it.

1.  Hit a great 4 iron just right of the bunker short of the green.  It bounced off the an edge on the walkway and kicked backwards.  Dropped on hardpan then TC Chen'd for a 5.

2.  Hit another 4 iron that landed on the green about 15 feet short and right of the pin.  Bounded off the green into the fescue beyond the collection area behind the green.  Hacked it to 15 feet, missed the putt, 4.

3.  Hit hybrid to the left and long but on the green... two putted for par.

Some might call this "unfair" because you cannot bail out short due to the walkway, the bunker and the ravine.  You also cannot hit a nonspinning iron near the pin because the slope and firmness of the green catapults the ball to the rear.  The smart play is to aim away from the pin where a nonspinning shot will stop then try to make a 30 footer.  I don't call this unfair.  I call it a really hard par 3.

PS.  My buddy, 10 shots better and 50 yards longer than me, stuck a 6 or 7 iron each day inside of 15 feet.  My competing straight up against him is just stupid... not "UNFAIR."   

[Carl Johnson]

I posted my comment because we are knee deep in our member guest plus the course and greens are just wonderful right now.  The fairways are tightly cut and the greens are smooth as glass.  Our 7th hole at Carolina Golf Club features an uphill approach shot to a moderately undulating green with about a 6 foot false front.  One of our favorite pin placements is front left about 10 feet off the edge of the false front.  There is also a slight backstop behind the pin.  This creates several scenarios that drive our members / guests / players insane regardless of handicap or experience.  Most shots hit to the green are within 150 yards.

1.  Shot lands on the pin WITH spin, it runs off the false front and down the fairway.
2.  Shot 5 yards past the pin WITH spin, it caroms off the backstop, rolls past the pin, down the false front, and down the fairway.
3.  Miss the green short.  You better chip over that false front or it rolls back off to your feet OR 40 feet behind you at the bottom of the fairway.
4.  Miss the green right... you better chip above the false front OR below the backstop or the ball might start heading left... catch the edge of false front... then roll down the fairway.
5.  Miss the green long... you better chip carefully because too much speed will catch the backstop slope, rolls past the pin, roll down the fairway.
6.  If your ball lies above the backstop on the green... you need a delicate putt to prevent it from rolling down the fairway.

I have seen a touring pro make 7 dealing with that pin.  I have seen a two time club champion make 8 chipping and putting back and forth across the green.  I have seen a 75 year lady in the nine hole group chip it past the hole and down the fairway and immediately walk off the green to her bag and continue to 8 tee.  I have seen regular members just butcher that hole.  It reminds me of the Sunday pin on #9 at ANGC.

On the flip side, I have seen our club pro, Jeffrey Peck, hit a "dead hand" knuckleball wedge that stops next to the pin 80% of the time.  I have also seen another club champion always aim right of the pin to the flat side of the green and just try to make a 15 foot putt.

If I hear that pin is "unfair" one more time my head might explode.  The same goes for GCA... there is no such thing as "unfair" because the entire field has to deal with whatever feature you deem "unfair."  Lately our firm and fast conditions plus the speed of the greens has really helped to showcase that pin placement (my personal favorite) as a true test of golf.  Thanks to everyone for some great replies!!

Roger, I call that pin position very challenging.  I watched any number of pros play that position in qualifying for the Quail Hollow Championship.  The most successful plays that I saw were high, no-spin shots that landed on the backstop slope about 10 feet to 12 feet behind the pin, and then trickled back down toward the pin.  Since I don't have that shot, I usually try to play out to the right of pin and see if I can get it somewhere around hole high and go from there.  Interestingly, in the qualifying one of the pros I was watching missed the green to the left.  He was on a mound a little past hole high.  Rather than try to get his third shot close to the pin, he pitched to the far side of the green and ended up about hole high to the right of hole, maybe 25 to 30 feet.  He missed his par putt, but he had chosen the right-of-the-pin option for his third shot as his best option.  In sum, it is a challenging pin position because it requires a little thought about how you approach it, which is not a bad thing.  If you screw up your approach, as I often do, then it is even more challenging, but neither unfair or even unreasonable.

[Mike Hendren]

It means that notwithstanding my lack of talent, the hole is not where my ball finishes.

Mike

[JC Jones]

Roger,

my suggestion regarding the complaining member (and we all know it is Ed), is to tell him he isn't good enough to know if something is unfair or not.

[Dave McCollum]

A whole bushel of good comments, mostly in agreement.  The discussion made me think about a tournament hosted every year at Old Works, a Nicklaus design in Montana that is fun and very playable if one plays from the right tees because the tips are 7,700+ yards and there is usually wind.  (Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this course is sociological.  It was built on an old mining smelter site that had been classified as Superfund site by the EPA—essentially burying the pollution beneath a golf cap and creating a subjectively beautiful bit of recreation in a toxic wasteland.  The course was then given to the depressed and dying town of Anaconda, population c. 4,000, and is now a popular and affordable tourist attraction.  A case could be made that golf saved both a polluted site and dying town.)

They call it the tournament “The Ironman.”  The course is set up to be as difficult as possible with pins in places they never use during everyday play.  The event is open to all and draws about an equal number of good regional amateurs and club pros who share a common goal:  have fun and try to break 100.  One of our club’s pros, a very good player, shot 100 and can’t wait to get back for another shot at this monster.

Fairness?  It’s all between the ears.

[Ronald Montesano]

I just had an epiphany...try it on and see if it fits:

Is unfair relative to regulation figures, which would then make it relative to par?

#10 at Winged Foot (west, was it?)--Billy Casper aimed short every day, relying on a pitch and putt to make 3 and move on...won the US Open there, as I recall. 

Jeff Brauer, et al, mentioned some of the approach shots that they consider unfair, but my subsequent interrogation is:  are there enough places to miss in regulation to ensure a legitimate shot at an up and down?

As a high school coach, I make a habit of hitting punch drivers (learned that one from "Dream Golf," specifically from the testimony of the author about the director of golf at Bandon Dunes' repository of unique shots) and laying up intentionally on par fours, to show the lasses and lads that on and putting for birdie is nice, but is often not worth the risk.

Therefore, I ask, is fairness relative to regulation figures and their cousin, par?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()