"Unfair" hole locations

[Jeff_Brauer]

I suppose I ought to back up my previous post with the story of the first green I ever graded as an associate, which had the hump in the middle.  Boss said, "Great drainage, lousy hole."  I was taught early and often that a hump in the middle of the green is probably the worst thing you can do, since its hard to hold any shot behind it.

Occasionally, I have seen golfers like JN or John Fought add a small hump in the first third of the green, as defense for a center pin position that bunkers just can't provide, but they allow plenty of depth behind it by having a real deep green.

[Greg Clark]

If I had to guess, I'd say almost every player in the field would agree with Miller. "Unfair" is competitor talk for "if I hit the best shot I can hit to the exact spot I'm trying to hit it, and it goes off the green, that's unfair."

Johnny's just using the vernacular of his former profession.

That's the key. What Johnny was saying didn't even really have to do with scores relative to par. It's not like it was a hole location that was causing numerous guys to 4 putt or anything. It was just a hole location that you should not aim directly at, and pros really only seem to think that they should have to think their way around green/hole locations like that at Augusta.

But there was no thinking in relation to the hole location.  There was no reward to go with the risk.  Hit to the middle of the green and 2 putt.  Even the players that needed to make up strokes, and with their ball on a tee, hit to the middle of the green and 2 putted.  While it wasn't "unfair", it was a terribly boring hole location.  

Contrast that to the Sunday position on 12 at Augusta.  You can play to the middle and two putt for sure.  But one can fire at that pin and actually be rewarded for taking the risk.  Of course you miss and your tournament hopes may be over.  Now that's a pin position that requires thought.

[Matthew Petersen]

If I had to guess, I'd say almost every player in the field would agree with Miller. "Unfair" is competitor talk for "if I hit the best shot I can hit to the exact spot I'm trying to hit it, and it goes off the green, that's unfair."

Johnny's just using the vernacular of his former profession.

That's the key. What Johnny was saying didn't even really have to do with scores relative to par. It's not like it was a hole location that was causing numerous guys to 4 putt or anything. It was just a hole location that you should not aim directly at, and pros really only seem to think that they should have to think their way around green/hole locations like that at Augusta.

But there was no thinking in relation to the hole location.  There was no reward to go with the risk.  Hit to the middle of the green and 2 putt.  Even the players that needed to make up strokes, and with their ball on a tee, hit to the middle of the green and 2 putted.  While it wasn't "unfair", it was a terribly boring hole location.  

Contrast that to the Sunday position on 12 at Augusta.  You can play to the middle and two putt for sure.  But one can fire at that pin and actually be rewarded for taking the risk.  Of course you miss and your tournament hopes may be over.  Now that's a pin position that requires thought.

Probably true. One of the big differences is that 12 at Augusta is a short iron and 13 at Doral is 238. I'm not sure if an 8- or 9-iron would hold on that hole location at Doral, but a good one from the best in the world might have a chance, which would be much preferable.

[Kyle Harris]

I hear this one a lot and I always ask, "What do you mean?" The answers vary, but invariably lead back to exposing some form of weakness in a player's game, including decision making.

As far as the rules of golf, unfair would imply that the hole was either too large, or too small...

Bob Crosby's mention of the entire field playing the same green is rather void of common sense, unfortunately, since the golf course is under constant change during the course of a round, and naturally during the course of the day. So really unless each green's ball roll is measured with a stimpmeter before each group, and adjusted accordingly, each group will play a different green.

The whole notion is frustrating and very opposed to the idea of playing a course as one finds the course.

[Mark_Fine]

The choice of words "unfair" was poor.  Fair and unfair should be banned from describing anything related to golf and golf course design.  That said, I didn't care for that hole location.  There was no risk and no reward.  I have not asked him but my guess is if Gil knew they were keeping the greens that firm and that fast he might redesign the contour on that narrow side of the green to be more receptive to a well played golf shot. This brings back calculated temptation.  When ALL the best players in the world get to tee up their ball from the same spot and still have no chance to pull off a heroic shot, something is probably not quite right.  My guess is this will be tweaked in the future, not to make it "fair" because we don't use that word, but to make it better!  Believe it or not, tweaking happens even on great golf courses!  It's ok 😊

[Jeff_Brauer]

Back in 1985, when I first started working with Jim Colbert, I got to sit around and hear a lot of the pros talk.  (He got me into the early Las Vegas Pro Ams, among other things)

I recall discussing "decision making" with him.  Unlike other pros, he was a grinder and worked on all the shots he thought he might need for a tournament to offset the fact he wasn't a long hitter.  I think he understood decision making.

However, he told me there really isn't much of it on the pro tour.  Once all your competitors start firing at the pins, you know one of two of them will be on, and torch par.  If you want to win, you can't play safe at all, or at least only at the very minimum.  You fire and make it, you finish high, you fire and miss, you finish low or miss the cut.

I asked about an old JN article where he talked about hitting the right part of the green, below hole, high percentage play, etc.  He basically said that approach went out 15-20 years ago (or about 1965-1970)  Plus, Jack was Jack, and his decisions were made knowing his iron might land 15 foot from where he aimed, whereas most of them counted on 20-25 feet back in those days.  I would presume, new accuracy tech would make the most accurate players closer to Jack's level then, but don't know, putting more pressure on other players.

So, in their minds, while everyone plays the same course, setting a pin on the back nine that you have to fire at to be competitive, in a spot where you can't reach it, isn't right.  And, add in the Larry Nelson comment on the par 5 thread - he always felt that the high fade players like Jack and Norman have a huge advantage, not only in reaching the par 5 holes, but in pin locations like this.  So, based on different game skills, that type of pin position isn't practically treating all contenders the same.

So, I wouldn't poo poo the pros for their thoughts on decision making, based on how you might play your $5 Nassau, or even club championship.

[Jeff_Brauer]

And, I related this one on the Jay Morrish thread, but I heard JN say one day that he wouldn't aim for a pin on less than a 40' wide target.  So, I use that as a design criteria, and sometimes find folks who think targets should be smaller than that, to punish good players, or whatever.  They might even disagree after hearing the JN story, sometimes strongly.  I tell them that I take JN's opinions over theirs, no offense intended.

And, I have told you of the Lanny Wadkins plane ride where he detailed all his best shots at Riviera, but then, he only hit them when on the top of his game.  If not in good game shape, he did return to safer shot patterns and defensive play.  But then, at that particular week, he knew he wasn't going to win, and was working towards the next week or some future point.

But, most of the guys you saw on Sunday were playing for a win, or to max out their earnings with the best possible finish.  I have never heard one say I played conservatively for tenth, at least not until that was as high as they could finish.  Even for the lower positions, prize money drops exponentially, so it is generally better to have tried (to fire at pins) and lost than to never fire at all.  The prize money upside is probably much greater than the prize money downside on Sundays......

[Mike_Young]

This could all be a play on words but IMHO HOLE LOCATIONS are thougt out and designed into a green complex by the architect hopefully.  If someone chooses to place pins outside of these areas they might not be considered unfair since all participants play to the same pin but they also may not present the golf course as it was meant ot be presented....JMO...

[Patrick_Mucci]

I imagine I'm not the only one here who winced when Johnny Miller repeatedly said the hole location on the par-3 13th at Doral was "unfair" yesterday.

Dan,

I did more than wince, I directed a few words in Johnny's direction.

Why was it "unfair"? Because if you aimed directly at it, the ball would bound over the green into the back bunker.

What I found interesting was that getting to the hole was made more difficult by technology, technology that makes it harder to work the ball.
Had those golfers been playing with I&B circa 1980 they could have worked the ball to those locations with relative ease.
Butk, that's not the game today.

I, for one, think there are no "unfair" hole locations, though there are many stupid ones.

Agreed

Was this a stupid one? Is a hole location that must be played not-directly-at stupid, by definition?

I say no.

How can we get in Johnny Miller's head, so that he will stop spreading the Gospel of Fairness?

That's a good question.
I would suggest letters to his attention as the best method.

[Mark_Fine]

Pat,
You need to get yourself to a PGA Tour event!  Some of these guys can draw or fade even their wedges 20 yards!!  Technology was not the issue.  Basically it was a unaccessable hole location for everyone and if you are ok with that, no worries.  To me Miller just choose the wrong word to describe it.  Mike raises a good point about whether Gil ever imagined a hole there with such firm and slick conditions.  I don't know the answer but with the area sooo narrow and the contours kicking everything into that back bunker (at least any shot I saw appeared to react that way and end up there) it seems tweaking would make it better and add more temptation to take that shot on.  The other option is we watch everyone play safe to the left and take their 30-40 foot putts (kinda like what would happen at #12 at Augusta if there was no chance to keep a ball on the green when the flag is far right).  Fortunately there is a chance even though it is high risk, but at least there is reward.  

Nothing wrong with tweaking a new golf course after it has been played for a while!  Heck Flynn would build some of his golf courses without bunkers and only add them years later after he saw how golfers played the course.  What is the big deal about tweaking a green contour here or there or even a few slopes of banks,...  It is still a great golf course and will get better!  I doubt there has ever been an architect who said his or her course was "perfect" right from the start and nothing could make it better.

Mark

[Chris Roselle]

As someone who sets hole locations for a living I too was a little taken aback by Miller's comments.  If he thinks that is an unfair hole location he should follow me around for a week.  I'm fortunate in that I get to pick hole locations at some of the greatest golf course this country has to offer and while that hole locations was extremely difficult to get close to it was ultimately very easy to putt to from almost all places once you reach the green.  There are hole locations on the 5th green at Merion, the 3rd green at Torresdale or the 11th green at Aronimink (all hole locations that are both extremely difficult to get close to and almost impossible to putt to) that would make the one they used at Doral look like a walk in the park.

[Mark_Fine]

Chris,
With all due respect, there are hole locations on zillions of greens that would be down right goofy but that is not the point.  I think all we are saying (at least all I am saying) is that particular part of the green at Doral might even be better and more exciting/tempting if there was some chance you could aggressively play a shot a little closer toward the hole (or at least work it into that hole).  #5 and #11 at Aronimink are par fours (can't recall the 3rd at Torresdale).  Doral's was a par three so every golfer got to tee his golf ball in the same location for their shot and there was still no chance/no reward to play aggressive. 

[Chris Roselle]

Chris,
With all due respect, there are hole locations on zillions of greens that would be down right goofy but that is not the point.  I think all we are saying (at least all I am saying) is that particular part of the green at Doral might even be better and more exciting/tempting if there was some chance you could aggressively play a shot a little closer toward the hole (or at least work it into that hole).  #5 and #11 at Aronimink are par fours (can't recall the 3rd at Torresdale).  Doral's was a par three so every golfer got to tee his golf ball in the same location for their shot and there was still no chance/no reward to play aggressive. 

Totally agree Mark.  Maybe he just should have said "uninteresting" as opposed to "unfair".

[Mark_Fine]

Chris,
Agreed!  Bad word choice by Miller.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike Young,

Many non-gca's here presume we leave a detailed list of instructions to the super and in this case, Tour Staff, but I doubt many do.  So, it might have gotten away from Gil at some later date.

I love Gil and all, and he does great work.  That said, given Doral was and was intended to continue to be a tournament course, I would assume Gil knew that the green would be set up at 12+ on the stimp when he designed it.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the PGA Tour took a look at all of it during construction, but I don't know that they did.  I presume he designed that as a Sunday pin.

Architects usually face the question of designing every pin for every wind, green speed, etc.  In short, its easy to go the playable anytime in any condition route, and always a bit risky to try something out of the box, even for one pin position, and certainly for more than one Sunday pin, hoping the future set ups will be intelligently done.  It seems to me that Gil took a chance on this green, and, when you do that, sometimes it doesn't result in the way you want.

I wonder if he wishes he would have been a bit more conservative now, or if he embraces the criticisms?

That said, the hole is 238. Those USGA Slope studies and Shot Link data, which are empirical, real world, field data, show even top players need about 10% of shot distance in depth and width to hit a target 66% of the time.  That pin area probably ought to have been 24 yards circle for that length. It appears to be about half that.  Not to mention, that data was probably done on greens that slope to the golfer, since most greens do.  A 12-15 yard area, with reverse slope ridge directly in front, and maybe reverse or sideways (to drain out between the bunkers) slope is probably not negotiable by anyone at that distance.

Just guessing, but if the target was a smidge larger, and that ridge turned 90 degrees, so they could fire right at it, or maybe use the ridge contours to deflect closer to the pin, the players would probably have nothing but praise for the options presented.  As configured, that pin is probably not considered great design by most pros/good golfers.  It seems that at least half ought to be able to hit it close in normal conditions, so it differentiates good and bad shots, rather than treat them all similarly.

It reminds me of a few similar pins I have designed, to go in the field and find a shaper has drained it sideways or backwards (or some angled combo of both) to save bringing in more fill.  He doesn't think it makes a difference.......but here is a case where it does, and in my projects, catering to less proficient golfers, it would probably be even more unplayable.  Which is another reason the architect needs to do field work......

[Jason Topp]

I love it when Jeff jumps in with data on these sorts of issues. 

I like to think of such issues on a continuim from interesting to boring and agree with those that have commented the pin was boring rather than unfair. 

[Dan Kelly]

That was probably an "unfortunate" choice for a Sunday final round pin in that it promoted VERY conservative play.  If you can carry a greenside bunker and land beside a tightly cut pin and go off the green and into a bunker long, it is not a good choice.  But unfair?  No such critter.

A.G.  (and others who henceforth agreed with you) --

I don't see why a hole location that promotes very conservative play is an unfortunate choice on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.

Very conservative = thoughtful, careful -- IMO. Thoughtfulness and carefulness are two important traits in a golfer.

Must *every* hole offer the opportunity for a tap-in birdie? I don't think so. And I don't think a hole that requires a substantial putt is therefore "boring."

13 on Sunday had a "sucker pin" -- a concept that golfers of every skill level should and do understand. I don't see why touring professionals should be exempt from sucker pins.

Maybe Johnny just needs to add a phrase or two to his arsenal, adapted from one of his longtime favorites. Here's the new phrase: "yellow light special." Or maybe, in this case, "red light special."

Dan

[Ken Moum]

Anybody who thinks fairness in result has anything to do with golf has clearly not understood the finer points of the game.

Jon

I think we somehow need to stop using that word... the idea that a hole or hole location can be "unfair" is as you suggest, silly.

Long ago I started using unreasonable instead.

For instance, a 15-yard-wide fairway with water on both sides is unreasonable.

A hole location that won't allow the ball to stop within 10 feet is unreasonable.

That hole location at Doral might be unreasonable, but I'm not even sure of that.

I, for one, am sick of pros suggesting that a shot that goes over the green was somehow "perfect."  The fact that it was exactly what they planned doe NOT make it a perfect shot.... to achieve perfection, a shot must also be perfectly planned.

K

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ken,

How about perfect in a practical sense?  As in, the target is too small for any of the best players to hit?  See my post above

If the object is to get the ball in the hole, I think most agree (as in your 10 foot example) that the golf course architecture ought to allow that, not make it impossible.

If the object is (and it is) to get the ball in the hole in par or your best score that day, I think most agree that the golf course architecture ought to allow that, not make it impossible to make par. (as in your 15 yard wide fw with double water example) Difficult in some cases, easier in others, and about average chance on most holes is probably a good goal, no? (with some variations from course to course and allowing for variations in players games)

I have always found golfers of all types don't mind if you make it their option to hit away from the hole, but when you make it a requirement, they tend to think its bad design.  I think its because its counter to the basic objectives of why they play the game, and its hard to think anyone should purposely design a hole that forces you to make bogey (such as a dog leg par 3) with the normal two putts.

I have also found everyone loves other folks to suffer, but no one likes to suffer themselves......

Granted, everything else is in between.

[Mark_Fine]

Wells stated Jeff!  You saved me a lot of typing 

[JMEvensky]

I have also found everyone loves other folks to suffer, but no one likes to suffer themselves......

Maybe a distinction without much difference,but I've always looked at it as people wanting to see PGAT players have as much trouble on a golf course as they have. Unfortunately,the only way to accomplish that is to make the course almost unplayable.

[John Kavanaugh]

I see no evidence of unplayable on the PGA Tour.  Pro football is another matter when looking at the long term effects of the game.

I am going to keep saying it.  If we don't stop whining about firm and fast greens we can kiss them goodbye.  The very nature of the the game and the economy that surrounds it calls for pro events to be the best a club can be all year.  We will always be presented something for our play slightly less good.  If pro events are played with softer and slower greens you can count on even softer and slower when you show up to play.

[JESII]

Which position requires better play to get down in 3...this par 3 as set up on Sunday? Or the 13th at Augusta from 215 to a pin up on that little back tier?

[Jeff_Brauer]

JK,

But, the old guys designed for the firm and fast greens they expected to have, by putting green "front" bunkers well out from the green to allow run up shots over them, etc.  Thomas wrote how he varied the up slope of greens based on what type of shot was coming in.  The same is true now, but the parameters have changed.

Perhaps we modern golf designers will change the greens we design based on new firmer standard we expect due to drought, water rationing, etc.

In any case, I am not sure this example is specifically relevant to your ideas, is it?

Jim,

Close call, but based on never actually having hit either shot under pressure.  In favor of the ANGC shot being tougher, ball not on tee, cross slope hook lie on a fade target, and its the Masters.  Not 100% sure how the green contours treat the shot.

The Doral shot  is tougher in overall length by a smidge, but with the ball on the tee.  And the fact that par does matter.  At 13 ANGC you miss and you still save par, at Doral, its likely a bogey. 

If you want to argue par doesn't matter, then probably ANGC 14, although maybe not. I have seen lots of people make that shot, whereas it seems as if no one was able to execute the one at Doral, regardless of other conditions.

[Brent Hutto]

Which position requires better play to get down in 3...this par 3 as set up on Sunday? Or the 13th at Augusta from 215 to a pin up on that little back tier?

I thought certain shots at Doral were reminiscent of certain shots at the Masters in a year when really firm conditions prevail (fast goes without saying at Augusta).

Time was, we all celebrated the years when Augusta punished a couple of contenders who chanced tricky approach shots to holes located just a firm slope away from water. And we were disappointed in the years when some of that risk was taken away by rainy weather and softer than optimal conditions.

There does seem to be a turn of the tide of groupthink here lately. Will there come a day when we think even Augusta National is supposed to reward any player who physically reach any green using a iron with an uphill putt inside 10 feet?