[Niall C]

I was pondering that question as I found my ball in a divot at the bottom of an old grassed over bunker on the 3rd hole at Old Moray. All around were nice mossy lies. Now of course having hit it into a bunker I possibly deserved it. Two holes later and my drive takes a deflection on landing and lands in the rough, again a not so clever lie. Not my fault but so what ?

In days gone by that would have been called rub of the green. Now its called poor maintenance or bad design. In any debate about curbing the obscene length of the pro's and puting a stop to them overwhelming courses, constant reference is made to the bomb and guage (?) tactics. Players giving it a heave ho off the tee and happy to play out of manicured rough as long as their closer to the green. Wo betide the PGA tour if the grass isn't the right height or uniformity. Same with bunkers, perfectly raked sand everywhere.

Think of all the cost and time and effort involved in this pursuit of fairness. To paraphrase Melvyn, my soul fair shreiks at all this nonsense. Isn't it time we got back to the old fashioned virtue of unfairness and got on with it. Start with the bunkers. Let them go hard and crusty. Let the lie be pot luck. Let the rough get shaggy and uneven......especially for pro events. Positively encourage the galleries to wander up and down the rough and see what that does for the bomb it anywhere crowd. Golf should be about dealing with the adversity rather than purely the skill of being able to avoid it.

Thoughts ?

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

We got away from that when golf became a business.  In business, the customer is always right, and golfers are some of the fussiest customers you could ever dream up.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

All the Golden Age guys wrote about creating more design fairness, so its nothing new, just a long slow trend, IMHO.

I have always imagined that the first cry of "Unfair!" happened no later than the back nine of the first competitive round of golf, whenever that might have been.

[Anthony Gray]

  That's why you should always carry a rut iron Niall.

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

Bernard Darwin called designs that strive for fairness, turgid.

Hats off to Bernard.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The problem is that fairness is thought of the same way in taxes and golf - as long as bad stuff happens to the other guy, so much the better.  But when the tax man, or architect calls your number, then its a whole different story!

Its really a matter of degrees.  If it gets too tricked up where the golf course rejects shots into hazards constantly, its no good.

If the golf course doesn't really help you at all, and has small margins for error, its simply difficult golf.

If the golf course helps a bit, with reasonable targets, canted towards you to help stop shots (at least a bit) etc., then its a fair test of moderate difficulty.

Then there is containment golf, which is almost condesecnding but perhaps necessary in certain situations.

In reality, on the bell curve, most of the courses ought to be in category 3, and most holes on most courses ought to be there, too.  I mean, how many tough holes does it take to make a really tough course?

I wonder when the sense of "we've gone too far in the name of fairness started?"  Certainly, the cries of the ball going too far date back 100 years, and I think there was a similar debate about fairness back then, too.  The old timers were saying they played uphill on every hole in a snowstorm on the "old courses" and the younguns had it too easy, even back then.

Its all relative.

[David_Tepper]

Niall -

Was your intention to discuss "fairness" in terms of course design or course maintenance?

DT

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

the problem as I see it is not that players find things unfair, they always have. No, the problem is that players are capable of accepting it anymore. The feeling of entitlement to what ever a person desires is a desease that has reared its ugly head in the last few decades here in Blighty mores the pity.

Jon

[DMoriarty]

Niall,

All the Golden Age guys wrote about creating more design fairness, so its nothing new, just a long slow trend, IMHO.

This is utter nonsense.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If the golf course helps a bit, with reasonable targets, canted towards you to help stop shots (at least a bit) etc., then its a fair test of moderate difficulty.
...

Definition - turgid
a) If the golf course helps a bit, with reasonable targets, canted towards you to help stop shots (at least a bit) etc., then its a fair test of moderate difficulty.
b) ...
c) ...
...

Bernard

[JMEvensky]

Niall,

the problem as I see it is not that players find things unfair, they always have. No, the problem is that players are capable of accepting it anymore. The feeling of entitlement to what ever a person desires is a desease that has reared its ugly head in the last few decades here in Blighty mores the pity.

Jon

Jon,I'm with you--the players' bitching hasn't changed so much as now their complaints are being catered to.I think Tom Doak may be right about the business side overtaking the spirit-of-competition side.

[BCrosby]

Niall,

All the Golden Age guys wrote about creating more design fairness, so its nothing new, just a long slow trend, IMHO.

This is utter nonsense.

I might have put it a bit more more politely, but I gotta agree with David. If anything, the GA guys were fighting battles with people they thought put too much emphasis on 'fairness'.

More broadly, calling a feature on a golf course 'fair' or 'unfair' is a category mistake for which you would be drummed out of Philoosphy 101. But we've been around that block too many times already.

Bob 

[Sean_A]

Niall,

All the Golden Age guys wrote about creating more design fairness, so its nothing new, just a long slow trend, IMHO.

This is utter nonsense.

I might have put it a bit more more politely, but I gotta agree with David. If anything, the GA guys were fighting battles with people they thought put too much emphasis on 'fairness'.

More broadly, calling a feature on a golf course 'fair' or 'unfair' is a category mistake for which you would be drummed out of Philoosphy 101. But we've been around that block too many times already.

Bob  

What happened to blindness and cross bunkers then?  Okay, the ODGs didn't call it unfair and folks call it that today. Whatever you want to call it, our modern idea of what is fair ain't so modern.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

All the Golden Age guys wrote about creating more design fairness, so its nothing new, just a long slow trend, IMHO.

This is utter nonsense.

I might have put it a bit more more politely, but I gotta agree with David. If anything, the GA guys were fighting battles with people they thought put too much emphasis on 'fairness'.

More broadly, calling a feature on a golf course 'fair' or 'unfair' is a category mistake for which you would be drummed out of Philoosphy 101. But we've been around that block too many times already.

Bob 

Yet the good Doctor said if the golfers complain then you have done something right. Clearly he did not believe it should be fair in the eyes of the player. It should be playable but not always fair. TOC is spot on in this point. Playable for all standards but full of irregular bounces, borrows and lies.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Golfers are some of the fussiest customers you could ever dream up.

And the modern customers have screwed with the game until it has so many variations that many have forgotten the real game of golf is about rising to the challenges. That real game of Golf was supported by many of the Designers, the proof is the great quality of courses found around the world, however can we honestly say that about today courses and designers?

Sorry Tom, many of the customers are not right, they have betrayed the game of golf for a weaker, easier and fairer variation, worst still they do not have the integrity or honesty to accept that their variation is not Golf. The only people they are fooling are themselves and the Governing Body – proving that they are long passed their sell by date and desperately need reforming.

Melvyn  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob, Sean and David,

While I haven't read those books in a while, my memory is that all the guys of the GA wrote against blindness (perhaps better off the tee than the approach) and that vision was ideal.  They ALL also eliminated cross bunkers in favor of the zig zag route.

I do recall that most of their books did start out complaining about the idiocy of greens chairmen, but if you read their actual design philosophies before telling me I'm wrong, you would change your tune.  Really, go read the damn books.  Or, go play their damn courses!  The proof is in the pudding!

They thought the dark ages (or as we call it, Melvyn's wheelhouse.......) were really bad design because they were overly punitive, etc.  Yes, we can pull quotes out to support either side.  But read Mac's principles, or Ross's whole book or Thomas.  They were all about fairness, alternate routes, greens accepting the shot they exected.

Bob, you might be about right in that there is a difference between "playable" and "fair" although in many cases, I suspect that this is a distinction without a difference.

I often laugh - for all the talk here about the disappearance of centerline bunkers, what % of golden age holes actually had them?  What % have reverse slope greens or fw?  You guys tend to think in BW but its all gray, with that generation starting the trend to modern golf design.  The principles of ANGC and other very playable, fair courses from the GA still guide most design today because they were sound for the typical (or exceptional) golf course or club.

I do agree that they would accept more blindness than today, because they had to.  And no doubt there was an acceration of the trend towards "fairness" over time.  I trace one such acceleration to Jack Nicklaus, but others may disagree.  But, I do liken it to the gnashing of teeth over the distance issue, too.  People have been writing about it and wondering about it for 100 years.

[Jon Wiggett]

Bob, you might be about right in that there is a difference between "playable" and "fair" although in many cases, I suspect that this is a distinction without a difference.

Jeff,

the difference is easy to define. Fairness is down to the opinion of the player but a hole is either playable or it is not and therefor a matter of fact

Jon

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

The only fairness should be that all are allowed to play the great game of golf which has sweet FA to do with fairness. It’s about the challenge.

Fairness is for the weak and uncommitted, not the golfer, because without the challenge there would be no game.

Want fairness, go into politics but certainly not golf.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

Politics is fair?  Didn't know that!

Sure golf is about the challenge, but its about a reasonable challenge, and as the needs of beginners, women, etc. are considered, rather than the male tour pro, or average male with an above average ego, the rub of the green, design wise, is just how much challenge is appropriate?  Of course, different courses for different horses.  Every course design has to determin where on the scale it will fall, and how that will relate to the golfers who will play it.

I do not think your one size fits all proclamations about what golf should be are correct.  Even if they were, we would have a hard time getting every golfer in the world to buy in, now wouldn't we?  But, I have no problem with about 1% of the courses in the world catering to those with your mindset, and another 2-3% catering to beginners, and a whole slew of courses in between trying to cater to a larger range of golfers, or weak and uncommitted golfers, as you would call them.

The simple facts are that the majority of golfers hit 5 to 15 good shots a round, averaging 10.  Getting it airborne is plenty challenge for them and even for Tour Pros, there is no real sense in a golf course purposely trying to be unfair by presenting targets that are unattainable given the physics of clubs and balls.

IMHO, you make every effort to present a reasonable test of golf and the unfairness really stems from maintenance issues - divots, hard pan lies, fried eggs, etc.  Those will never be eliminated, and most courses will probably have an "unfair" hole or two by design (designer couldn't figure it out any better.....).  To me, those bad breaks and a few poor holes are all the unfairness we need without trying to purposely create it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Niall,
Crusty bunkers? Pot-luck lies? Matted rough? Sounds like some of the courses I play.  

All those things are taken in stride when the green fee is $15, but they become unfair when it's $150.

Golfers have grown soft, a mound that once deflected a ball away from its intended resting place has been replaced by a containment mound that guides it there, and golfers love it.  
  

[Sean_A]

Bob, Sean and David,

While I haven't read those books in a while, my memory is that all the guys of the GA wrote against blindness (perhaps better off the tee than the approach) and that vision was ideal.  They ALL also eliminated cross bunkers in favor of the zig zag route.

I do recall that most of their books did start out complaining about the idiocy of greens chairmen, but if you read their actual design philosophies before telling me I'm wrong, you would change your tune.  Really, go read the damn books.  Or, go play their damn courses!  The proof is in the pudding!

They thought the dark ages (or as we call it, Melvyn's wheelhouse.......) were really bad design because they were overly punitive, etc.  Yes, we can pull quotes out to support either side.  But read Mac's principles, or Ross's whole book or Thomas.  They were all about fairness, alternate routes, greens accepting the shot they exected.

Bob, you might be about right in that there is a difference between "playable" and "fair" although in many cases, I suspect that this is a distinction without a difference.

I often laugh - for all the talk here about the disappearance of centerline bunkers, what % of golden age holes actually had them?  What % have reverse slope greens or fw?  You guys tend to think in BW but its all gray, with that generation starting the trend to modern golf design.  The principles of ANGC and other very playable, fair courses from the GA still guide most design today because they were sound for the typical (or exceptional) golf course or club.

I do agree that they would accept more blindness than today, because they had to.  And no doubt there was an acceration of the trend towards "fairness" over time.  I trace one such acceleration to Jack Nicklaus, but others may disagree.  But, I do liken it to the gnashing of teeth over the distance issue, too.  People have been writing about it and wondering about it for 100 years.

Jeff

I am with you!  The idea of fairness started with the Golden Age - only the ODGs called it good architecture.  As I said before, cross bunkers and blindness are obvious examples that were attacked by some prime ODGs.  Fowler and perhaps Park Jr are the exceptions.  Unfortunately, of the top ODGs, I think these guys had the least impact on architecture going forward.  

Ciao  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Politics is fair?  Didn't know that!  ops, you missed my meaning, but  compared to golf it should be fairer IMHO.

As for One size for all, is that not what we have today with staggered Tees.

Jeff, we must stop thinking easy, fair etc., and look to a course that has options for the careful observer to navigate the course either taking the risk or not, but at times pushing the challenge. Once caught by a trap then it is the thought that counts to exit the hazard not the brute ignorance of a swing hoping to clear the obstacle.

It’s not about being fair or unfair, it’s about facing the unknown, reading the course and accepting the challenge from start to finish.

The modern game has been watered down and side lined into a non-walking and regrettable more importantly non-thinking by the golfer. Golf is a walking thinking game while navigating a section of land that reflects its surroundings, giving the golfer the choice of other courses reflecting the local nature of their surroundings be it parlkand or links.

Thinking has suffered because of the lack of challenge. The tide of easy, super fair ideas of not taxing the golfer, be it his mind or body. To play golf we need to be taxed and most certainly in Mind and Body.

Melvyn

[Jon Wiggett]

IMHO, you make every effort to present a reasonable test of golf and the unfairness really stems from maintenance issues - divots, hard pan lies, fried eggs, etc.  Those will never be eliminated, and most courses will probably have an "unfair" hole or two by design (designer couldn't figure it out any better.....).  To me, those bad breaks and a few poor holes are all the unfairness we need without trying to purposely create it.

Yet Jeff when my buddy's ball comes down 10 feet short of a mound and bounces straight staying in the middle of the fairway and mine lands 10 feet further on to bounce sideways into the deep rough it has nothing to do with the maintenance but rather the GCA. Now I would call it 'rub of the green' but many would say it was UNFAIR. Rub of the green, bad luck/good luck are all part of the game and make it interesting. A fair course which never delivers a random result would be very, very boring. Surely, you are not saying this is your aim as a GCA!!!

Jon

[Tom_Doak]

Golfers are some of the fussiest customers you could ever dream up.

And the modern customers have screwed with the game until it has so many variations that many have forgotten the real game of golf is about rising to the challenges. That real game of Golf was supported by many of the Designers, the proof is the great quality of courses found around the world, however can we honestly say that about today courses and designers?

Sorry Tom, many of the customers are not right, they have betrayed the game of golf for a weaker, easier and fairer variation, worst still they do not have the integrity or honesty to accept that their variation is not Golf. The only people they are fooling are themselves and the Governing Body – proving that they are long passed their sell by date and desperately need reforming.

Melvyn  

Melvyn:

I did not mean that I design courses to give the customer just what they want.  I was just saying that's been the trend for the last 50 years, because only select clients are actually asking us to design courses that are interesting for them to play ... most clients now are more concerned with designing a course that will make the customers come back and keep the course in the black financially.

I am fortunate that I have mostly been able to avoid such clients yet continue to earn a living in the business.

[DMoriarty]

Really, go read the damn books.  

Which "damn books?"  According to the "damn books" I have read, you are mistaken.

CBM's idea of fairness was that any bunker was fair so long as one could get out of it in some direction with a reasonable swing. He got that from Low.  While both Low and CBM weren't fond of too much blindness, their argument wasn't really about fairness, but rather about the joy of following the ball.   And both of them allowed for some blindness in some circumstances, and both wrote of the thrill of running up to the top of a hill to see the results of one's shot. CBM purposefully included blindness on his courses.   And his courses contain plenty of center line hazards.   As for cross bunkers, I don't think you understand the complaint against them. It wasn't really an issue of fairness, at least not initially.   CBM's courses feature a plenty of cross hazards, some in the form of diagonal bunkers.  

Your post seems part of a consistent pattern on your part to diminish the past era in order to justify the mediocre architecture that followed.
__________________________________________________________

Sean,  

As I said above, I don't think the concern with blindness or with cross bunkers was necessarily a fairness issue, at least not initially.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()