The Paradox of Proportionality

[mike_beene]

Setting all the arguments aside about period versus straight,long versus shirt,fair or not the hole is still small and you have to eventually get your ball there. To do that consistently in a reasonable number of strokes is the great equalizer and attraction of the game.

[Joe Lane]

Dear Mr. Crosby,


I’m afraid I must disagree with you regarding wind as an architectural choice. A simple hypothetical should illuminate what I mean: imagine a course built amongst dunes. (As many are.) One choice would be to route the holes between the dunes, another might be to run them along the tops of the dunes. One choice then would necessarily expose the player to the vagaries of the wind more than the other; in that sense then whether to maximize or minimize wind exposures is necessarily an architectural choice. So, wind is always an architectural factor.


That is also why, as I say to Mr. Brauer, that wind is always a disproportionate factor also: wind will necessarily have a larger effect on some holes or even shots than others, an effect that is necessarily disproportionate to the effort expended by the player. If “disproportionate” is taken to mean, as I understand we have been using the word here, that the player’s skill plays relatively less of a role in determining the outcome of the shot than it would under “ideally proportionate conditions,” then wind necessarily makes the role of skill smaller and hence must be considered disproportionate as we have been using the term.


If my reasoning or definitions are flawed, please direct me to where I might think better: I have spent quite some time turning the matter over and can find no understanding in which wind is anything other than an agent of chaos, nor in which golf architects must account for it.


Respectfully,


Joe

[JESII]

Joe,

I think you have it wrong in assuming that golf is essentially a zero sum game regardless of conditions.

As last Sunday/Monday in San Diego proved, some 3 under par rounds are better than others.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe,

I think you have it wrong in assuming that golf is essentially a zero sum game regardless of conditions.

As last Sunday/Monday in San Diego proved, some 3 under par rounds are better than others.

Indeed, but I thought that was what Joe was saying.


Bob Crosby's post that wind is proportional [if he means linear] as it relates to golf, is mistaken.  The effect of a 30-mph wind is MORE THAN double the effect of a 15-mph wind, and the effect of a 60-mph wind is more than double the effect of a 30-mph wind. 

[Joe Lane]

Jim,


I’m completely unsure how I could have written so badly as to be understood as saying that golf is a zero sum game. I’m not even sure what saying golf is “a zero sum game regardless of conditions” would mean exactly, so I’m at a loss to know how I could have meant that. I’m not even saying you’re not correct—it’s just that I really don’t know what it is you are saying I am saying. If you’d care to explain, I will be sure to take the time to respond to you.


In previous posts, what I understood myself to be doing was responding to Jeff’s claim that wind is a “proportionate” factor, which I don’t believe it is in part because wind will play a different role depending on the hole, which in turn relates to Mr. Crosby’s claim that weather is not an architectural factor. I would say that the architect must respond to whatever he knows about the conditions of the site, whether geographically or climatologically, and hence wind, as part of weather, is always an architectural factor. They are two different, but related, claims. I am not sure where the concept of “zero-sum” would fit into these structures, but I would respond to a description of what you meant.


With respect,


Joe

[Joe Lane]

Hi Mr. Doak!


Thank you very much for the support; it’s odd that I was crafting my response to Jim at just the same time you sent yours. In any case, what you say is indeed precisely what I was attempting to mean when it concerns the nature of wind.


I’d illustrate the point by reference to the time I was caddying at Riviera. I was working for a single guy, and when we got to the twelfth (the one with Bogie’s Tree) I could tell that the wind was howling in the air above the canyon where Riv is situated, even though we could barely feel anything at ground level. The guy sat about 145 yards from the hole, and I told him what I thought. He looked at me and said, “so basically you want to hit a 200 yard club for 145 yard shot.” I thought about it, and said yeah.


At Riv, the wind is completely part of site itself: because the canyon shields so much, the wind plays a role that’s probably different than nearly any course in the world. If you can keep a shot lower than the top edge of the canyon, the wind will hardly matter; above it, and things are different. In this case, my logic was that the 200 yd. club was a hybrid, hence would climb above the calm layer into the gale above, which would have the effect of knocking the shot down the necessary amount.


When the guy hit the ball he was smiling; he didn’t even watch the shot afterwards, as he asked for another ball so he could hit another, “proper” shot.


I nearly didn’t point out to him that his first shot had rolled up to about an inch of the cup.


Wind is chaotic, and plays a considerable role in architecture.


Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,


I understand your position.


However, I think there has to be an unwritten balance between "proportionality" and "randomness".


In general, I think there have to be significant elements of proportionality.


Other than a punch bowl green/fairway I don't think you can equalize margins of error, especially when those margins are so disparate.


The "double plateau" green strikes me as a decent example of proportionality.


What intrigues me in terms of "proportionality" is TOC and your reverse course.


"Proportionality" as it relates to the play of the game presents inherent conflicts, namely, the balance between differentiating a good shot from a mediocre shot from a bad shot.


The architecture has to be the determiner/discriminator, the cause that produces the effect/result, hence proportionality must be incorporated in every design.


It's the degree of proportionality that's the issue, and that's where the element of "randomness" comes into play.


And, it's the architect's job to determine the that balance.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


I think you do understand my position, better than some have.


I'm not saying there is no place in golf architecture for proportional returns ... if the result never seemed to match the shot, most people would give up pretty quickly. 


I'm just saying that you can't ALWAYS want that sort of "justice" if you also want the game to be interesting, or to reflect the natural terrain which usually contains a fair degree of inconsistency.  The architects who want to smooth those away in the name of proportionality have evidently given up on the idea of the game's roots in Nature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I disagree that a plateau green is a good example of "proportionality".  In my view, a flattish to gently rolling green is the most proportional, in that a shot hit 10 foot from the pin stays 10 foot from the pin, one 20 foot away stays 20 foot away, etc.  With some variation, longer putts are just a bit more challenging than shorter one, etc.  Flat is almost the perfect proportional green, and gently rolling does allow a good player to use the slope to get close to the pin, but obviously sometimes it will roll it further, but seldom out of control.

On any two or three tiered green, i.e., the double plateau, there is the possibility that a good shot landing 10 feet from the hole location can be kicked well away, leaving a longer putt, chip, or even a short lob wedge, as on the false front at La Cumbre as discussed.  Hardly a proportional punishment,  but I agree that once in a while, having those kinds of greens is fun, really differentiates a great shot from a good one, introduces some strategy of missing the tier on the safe side over just firing at the pin, etc. etc. etc.

As to how often that type of randomness ought to be included, I have asked all the Tour pros I have worked with and the answer is usually a maximum of 4 greens having those characteristics.  Good enough for me, and that is the most I would put on any course, and would use different configurations, too.

But, overall, I read your post (and have re-read Tom's) and most are in the same ballpark on this.  First, there is usually a limit to the main landing zones and better players when applying the theory, perhaps only the challenge spots in these zones.  If anything, there is sort of a reverse proportionality for really bad shots where we tend to treat them more gently, if only to speed play.  Most of us are of the belief that even if we designed 100% for proportionality and minimal bad bounces, the poor golfer would still have more than their share of bad luck.

For better players, the amount of intentional randomness designed into a course might vary from about zero for Jack Nicklaus to many more for Tom Doak who is probably more willing to allow random punishment than most gca. And of course, with all design philosophies, long live the differences!

BTW, somehow missed the discussion on wind being proportionate or not.  For any given shot, harder wind is harder, perhaps exponentially harder, but still harder.  Understood and agreed it is so unpredictable that we really can't say how any particular wind affects a golf match.  That said, I believe it does relate to architecture, even in the few example given.  Links courses generally have open front greens, maybe larger greens, etc. because the architect knows that in wind, the reasonable margin for error, as Tom Doak puts it, is larger, and proportionally accommodates.  In theory anyway, natural conditions make perfect adjustment - if there is such a thing - for wind impossible.

[Joe Lane]

Hi Pat,

One thing your post makes clear to me is that it may seem as though I am somehow advocating that a shot’s result should have no relationship with the player’s skill, which I am in no way proposing—as that would be absurd. That’s called playing the lottery, a game that admittedly is pretty popular but hardly what golf is.

What I AM saying, and Mr. Crosby’s essays regarding the Crane/Behr debate in 1926 have been hugely illuminating in that regard (thank you Mr. Crosby!), is that said relationship cannot be guaranteed: hence, contra your view that there should be a “balance between differentiating a good shot from a mediocre shot from a bad shot,” in fact there can be no guarantee of such a differentiation. To use a mathematical analogy, the difference between a good shot and a mediocre shot might be 4x, while the difference between a mediocre shot and a bad shot might only be 6x (i.e., a mediocre shot might be four times worse than a good shot, while a bad shot is only 6 times worse.)

In such a case, in other words, the mediocre shot could be said to be a minor catastrophe, while the bad shot isn’t really much different from a mediocre shot. Imagine a devilish greenside bunker next to a pond: in that case, it might actually be a worse result to end up in the bunker (which might potentially end up costing many strokes, such as the front left bunker on the tenth at Mr. Doak’s Streamsong Blue) than the pond, which costs a penalty shot but then allows a good lie. The debate in other words lies exactly in the ratio between those differing shots: the reason the doctrine of “proportion” fails then is that it suggests that the ratio should be constant. I deny both that the ratio ever could be constant and that it ought to be held as an ideal. It seems to me, in fact, that’s arguable that the better the designer the more that the ratio is fiddled with: I even suspect that it may be the best way to think about design, full stop.

I understand that this is a deceptive topic: it looks incredibly straightforward—but I would maintain that, like many apparently simple things, the simple requires some of the deepest and subtlest thought.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

I think we're in perfect harmony on this subject.

The phrase: "Golf isn't Fair" would seem to epitomize our views on this subject.



Patrick:


I think you do understand my position, better than some have.


I'm not saying there is no place in golf architecture for proportional returns ... if the result never seemed to match the shot, most people would give up pretty quickly. 


I'm just saying that you can't ALWAYS want that sort of "justice" if you also want the game to be interesting, or to reflect the natural terrain which usually contains a fair degree of inconsistency.  The architects who want to smooth those away in the name of proportionality have evidently given up on the idea of the game's roots in Nature.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

Yes, proportionality, the word itself, suggests a simple straight line relationship in reward and punishment to the quality of golf shot that can never be guaranteed.

If you wanted to move the discussion from the general theory to specific examples, what types or architectural features does a strong theory of proportionality suggest?  Here are a few:

Flat/gently rolling greens, slope back to front, concave to hold shots that initially land there on the surface.
Fairways graded to under 5-7% roll to keep balls from rolling off or out of control
Doglegs Super Elevated or any fw contouring that holds shots on the fw if they land there.
Overly irrigated fairways and greens
Graduated cuts - fw to first cut, to rough to natives/woods
Fairway bunkers shallower on the fairway side, deeper on the outside.
Save bunkers along water hazards keeping the near miss dry

There must be more I can't think of right now, so feel free to add and discuss.  And, some of these wander into related areas, like containment, etc. 

The related question, since most seem to agree that random punishment is okay every once in a while, is how many times per round would ideally constitute the right amount?  Once as a talking point?  Every other hole?  Obviously it varies.

I am thinking of an example like the tiered green, or maybe a fairway with a "collection bunker" that might take a shot from the middle of the fairway and seemingly safe all the way off the fairway to a bunker.  As I mentioned, JN would never do that.  Or, it would most often be a steep shelf, obviously marked to the golfers eye.

How many does Tom Doak put in per course?

And, it would seem the real question would be, how much room does an architect leave around such a feature, perhaps hidden to all but the most discerning eye?

I think Tom would say that if there is enough fairway width to play around a subtle feature like a collector area, its really just a different hazard.  After all, he could have put rough and a bigger bunker in that zone and while perhaps better marked, the result would be the same, no?  If the fw slope is more frustrating to golfers, so much the better, it makes for a memorable hole.....

I don't get the sense that he is advocating a completely sloped fairway (like what Cherry Hills became when mowing heights got lowered) where everyone gets kicked off the fairway.   Again, with enough safe area to hit, consider club, wind, firmness, etc. (allowing reasonable guesses for each) a portion of any fairway that isn't completely receptive is fine, and the repeat golfer learns they should miss it.

[BCrosby]

Tom and Joe -

I must not have been very clear. Let me try again. Wind, rain, turf conditions and so forth will all vary from day to day. They have all sorts of effects on golfers. Some effects might be proportional, some might not be, some are hard to tell.

My point is pretty simple. Precisely because those things are so variable, they have little relevance in solving the architectural problem Tom calls the "paradox of proportionality".

Let me put that differently. You are not going to answer many design questions by relying on things you can't control. Rather you solve design questions using things you can control. You deal with architectural challenges with the architectural features you build on the ground.

How you go about doing that will depend, at least to some extent, on how you feel about whether all punishments should be proportional to the degree a shot is missed and whether good shots should likewise all be rewarded in proportion to their excellence.

(As a historical note, one of the most important breakthroughs that John Low brought to the game was to challenge the notion that rewards and punishments should always be deserved. He was one of the first to criticize the assumption (widely held during his era, later held by Crane, but still widely held today) that golf courses have a duty to be in some ethical sense 'fair".)

The reason I have always liked Tom's description of the "paradox" is because it captures so well the "paradoxical" push-pull we all feel between, otoh, golfers' innate sporting instincts that all rewards and punishments should be earned and, otoh, that interesting, fun golf courses violate those innate instincts (at least from time to time). That, I think, is at the heart of what is paradoxical about Tom's paradox.

I hope the above makes more sense.

Bob     

[Joe Lane]

Jeff,

(Note: I wrote this before I saw your reply. I am posting this because I think it helped me to get at something about what the wind means, though I do think that your more recent reply does show an understanding of the difference between proportional and exponential. Yet, I still think that something is missing in this discussion, hence I am posting it—though I am VERY impressed by the progress I’d say we have all been making. This whole thread has I think been hugely educational.)

I’m sorry to say this, but your discussion of wind leaves the very essence of the subject untouched. What I mean might be summed up my noting that you do observe that wind may be exponentially harder, but seem to dismiss or misunderstand the effects of the “exponentiality,” if I can make up a word. A thing cannot be, in other words, both exponential and proportional—the definition of the one term excludes the other. By “airily”—if you’ll allow the pun—allowing that wind can be exponential, and yet still follow the dictates of proportionality, I’m afraid that you may not have entirely thought the matter through. Let me explain what I mean.


Proportional, I take it, means that player effort X will receive a result Y that could be regularly plotted on a standard Cartesian grid: as an illustration, we could say that a shot twice as bad as a good one will receive a result twice as bad as a good shot. But if an exponential force is allowed to act on the ball, then a shot that is twice as bad as a good one might receive a result that is ten times as bad. In such a case, the plots of misses would not follow the nice even curve of the “proportional” case—there will be what some mathematicians and others call a “long tail.” This is a point that cannot simply be waved away. That doesn’t mean of course that the point could not be argued away—it’s just that, unless you actually address the point at issue, then it hasn’t been argued away. Again, this is NOT the simple topic it seems to be—in fact, Nobel prizes and many, many careers have been awarded for thinking about how to draw this line, so it shouldn’t be wondered that it can’t immediately be pinned down in golf.   


The larger point, in other words, could be said to be a paraphrase of a line from Game of Thrones: “if you think this is easy, you haven’t been paying attention.”


Joe

[Joe Hancock]

One of my favorite courses is maintained in such a way that, occasionally, I might skull a long iron and it will bound and bumble its' way onto the green despite how poorly I struck it. And it happens regardless of my understanding of proportionality.

[Joe Lane]

Hi Mr. Crosby,


I am afraid I must not have been very clear either. I think what I am saying is that because of such things as prevailing winds, weather-related issues can and indeed must come into view of the architect. In that sense, weather does come under the “control” of the architect.


To Jeff:


One thing I think that is warping the discussion here also is the implicit suggestion that “randomness” is all “bad bounces.” By definition, it also includes “good bounces”—that is, situations where the player gets a result that is much better than he “deserves.” Mr. Doak I don’t think gets enough credit for the good bounces players get on his courses—it’s a subtle kind of selection bias on the part of the player’s mind. The shots I’ve seen on the Blue Course (Red also) at Streamsong alone could fill several paragraphs—yet I doubt many of those golfers are inclined to credit the architect for the assist. (Sort of like how not a lot of golfers are inclined to credit their caddie for the club or the correct target, lol!) That is also one reason why tour pros are (I’d say, and I’ve looped on tour) poor sources of insight for golf course design: I suspect no one would enjoy trying to make their living playing Streamsong—the mental stress over whether you would make $10,000 or $100,000 that week would be horrible!


My two cents anyway,


Joe

[Mark Pavy]

Does that mean I want good shots to receive bad results?  Not at all, but you have to define what a "good" shot is.  A good shot is a shot that winds up inside the golfer's expected margin of error.  If his shot finds a hazard, then by definition, though the swing might have been a good one, the player must have miscalculated on where to aim.   

Tom,

I'd change your definition to this- A good shot is a shot that winds up inside the individual golfers definition of a good shot, a golfer's expected margin for error suggests that any shot could be called good, which is not the case.

Isn't the handicapping system testament that a paradox only exists in the architects head?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,
[/size]
[/size]Regarding wind, I side with Bob Crosby, in that basically it's unpredictable, so architects design for what they can control. On windy sites, they make an allowance perhaps for how they think the wind will be in typical conditions, but of course, you can trust the wind about as much as that Nigerian Prince offering to put $1M in your bank account.  Or, put another way, I understand your points on wind, but the thought level exceeds what a designer can reasonably account for in a design.
[/size]
[/size]Mark P,
[/size]
[/size]Not sure I follow that logic, and agree with TD.  The whole point of temptation is to possibly exploit the difference in what a golfer can actually do, and what he thinks he can do.  There are some pretty well defined statistics as to what golfers actually do (although sadly, so much at the Tour level, which doesn't really help for design for the rest of us.....)
[/size]
[/size]Also, not sure how the handicap system fits into the paradox.  Or at least, when laying things out, I consider each shot and how doable it is for an estimation of several typical players.  I have only had one coffee today, but at first glance, your statement would seem to relate to how many times a gca would set up holes where handicap golfers, from their "proper" tee, to try/accept purposely, or  purposely, that a certain amount of shots require rather than make a wise option out of the safe route, no?
[/size]

[Jeff_Brauer]

PS, not sure what is going on with all the type sizes things. I have seen it on my posts and others.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does that mean I want good shots to receive bad results?  Not at all, but you have to define what a "good" shot is.  A good shot is a shot that winds up inside the golfer's expected margin of error.  If his shot finds a hazard, then by definition, though the swing might have been a good one, the player must have miscalculated on where to aim.   
 
Mark,
 
While that's a reasonable definition, it's too subjective.
 
It lacks a benchmark.
 
A good shot for a 36 handicap may be a poor or mediocre shot to a 16 or 0 handicap golfer.

Tom,

I'd change your definition to this- A good shot is a shot that winds up inside the individual golfers definition of a good shot, a golfer's expected margin for error suggests that any shot could be called good, which is not the case.

Isn't the handicapping system testament that a paradox only exists in the architects head?

[Jon Wiggett]

PS, not sure what is going on with all the type sizes things. I have seen it on my posts and others.

Jeff, a lack of proportionality maybe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I disagree that a plateau green is a good example of "proportionality".
 
Jeff, it wouldn't be the first thing we disagree on.
 
In my view, a flattish to gently rolling green is the most proportional, in that a shot hit 10 foot from the pin stays 10 foot from the pin, one 20 foot away stays 20 foot away, etc.  With some variation, longer putts are just a bit more challenging than shorter one, etc.  Flat is almost the perfect proportional green, and gently rolling does allow a good player to use the slope to get close to the pin, but obviously sometimes it will roll it further, but seldom out of control.
 
Here's where we disagree.
Hit the plateau where the hole is located and you have a relatively benign putt.
Hit another plateau and you have a far more difficult putt.
Miss the green and you have an exponentially more difficult shot.
 
As your margin of error increases, so does the penalty.
That's proportional.

On any two or three tiered green, i.e., the double plateau, there is the possibility that a good shot landing 10 feet from the hole location can be kicked well away, leaving a longer putt, chip, or even a short lob wedge, as on the false front at La Cumbre as discussed.
 
You've created a very rare, extreme example, which in turn creates a flawed conclusion.
 
I've never seen a ball landing 10 feet from the hole (roughly 3 paces) being kicked away.
While it's possible to locate the hole within 10 feet of the ridge, it's rarely done.
 
And, that's basically the luck of the bounce.
A perfect trajectoried shot can be perfectly on line and hit a sprinkler cap or imperfection in the approach and take a horrendous bounce.  That's got nothing to do with "proportionality" which has more to do with where the ball ends up as opposed to how it got there.
 
Hardly a proportional punishment, 
 
Again, that's more about lucky or unlucky bounces versus the penalty implied with "proportionality"
 
but I agree that once in a while, having those kinds of greens is fun, really differentiates a great shot from a good one, introduces some strategy of missing the tier on the safe side over just firing at the pin, etc. etc. etc.

As to how often that type of randomness ought to be included, I have asked all the Tour pros I have worked with and the answer is usually a maximum of 4 greens having those characteristics.  Good enough for me, and that is the most I would put on any course, and would use different configurations, too.
 
Frank Hannigan told me that the last or worst golfers you should listen to are the PGA Tour Pros.

But, overall, I read your post (and have re-read Tom's) and most are in the same ballpark on this.  First, there is usually a limit to the main landing zones and better players when applying the theory, perhaps only the challenge spots in these zones.  If anything, there is sort of a reverse proportionality for really bad shots where we tend to treat them more gently, if only to speed play.  Most of us are of the belief that even if we designed 100% for proportionality and minimal bad bounces, the poor golfer would still have more than their share of bad luck.

For better players, the amount of intentional randomness designed into a course might vary from about zero for Jack Nicklaus to many more for Tom Doak who is probably more willing to allow random punishment than most gca. And of course, with all design philosophies, long live the differences!
 
That would be a short coming on Nicklaus's part.
Perfect results isn't the goal that architecture is intended to produce


BTW, somehow missed the discussion on wind being proportionate or not.  For any given shot, harder wind is harder, perhaps exponentially harder, but still harder.  Understood and agreed it is so unpredictable that we really can't say how any particular wind affects a golf match.  That said, I believe it does relate to architecture, even in the few example given.  Links courses generally have open front greens, maybe larger greens, etc. because the architect knows that in wind, the reasonable margin for error, as Tom Doak puts it, is larger, and proportionally accommodates.  In theory anyway, natural conditions make perfect adjustment - if there is such a thing - for wind impossible.
 
But, prevailing winds can be incorporated into the design.
 
I think Shinnecock exemplifies the factoring of wind into the design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,


Well, I still disagree, but admit your logic is a lot better and well reasoned this time.  We don't necessarily disagree on anything, but its a matter of semantics and maybe frequency of use.

But, being okay with something to varying degrees conceptually is different than admitting that, IF we had to classify  architectural (and we don't, but we're in that discussion by choice) features that intentionally seek to create greater differentiation among similar shots is NOT intended or considered to be proportional in the strictest sense. 

Proportional is miss by a foot, be a foot away, miss by two feet be 2 feet away, etc.  Miss by 3 feet and be 20 yards away is not a straight line relationship in treating an approach shot, nor in the resulting putt.

Not bad architecture, especially if you want a hard course (many of those old RTJ greens are really artful two tier greens) but conceptually, should be limited, if not trying to make the course too hard.  Even on better tests of golf, some question how often architecture should run counter to intuition, rewarding golfers for aiming away from the flag?  It's not all or nothing, but somewhere overuse of non proportional architecture crosses the line from good to goofy design.

Admittedly, wherever there is a line in architecture - fw to rough, turf to sand, top of ridge to bottom of ridge, there is a quickly changing difference in how a ball is treated.  That is sort of the point of a hazard and sometimes, golfers don't understand that ground slope itself is a viable hazard over things that they see more clearly placed by the architect, especially when that slope hazard is IN and not adjacent to the intended target, and tiered greens are that by definition.

And, there is architectural value to many in that ah ha  moment of discovery when you figure out that is exactly what the architect is asking, and the fun of the 3 seconds of in flight entertainment of not knowing what will happen when ball hits ground.  And, the greater possibility of creating great bar stories!  To me, anyway, but maybe not to tour pros, at least as a steady diet of architecture induced safe play.

BTW, someone mentioned the good bounces.  A punch bowl green (which I love) is a theoretical example of intentional reverse proportional penalty, it doesn't matter where you hit it, you end up the same place as someone who sticks it on the green.  Room for that, too, at least in my book (and I used kick slopes often) And, fun, but some better players and tour pros would say they are verboten because they help poor shots.

I don't count Redan holes as lucky bounces - the architecture is intentionally rewarding a certain type of shot, which is okay, but some golfers who can't play the favored shot may bitch about either the bad bounce or bad luck, and its neither, really.  Incorporating prevailing wind into design is similar to the Redan slope, and I usually do it so golfers who can hit certain shots benefit more on an individual hole more than others who can;t, but of course, it is still up to the individual to plan and execute.

All of which makes strict proportionality undesirable, not to mention unattainable, but its more likely to be favored by most competitors to whom score is the most important thing.  For those who want to have fun, its certainly not the top priority when selecting a course to play.

But, none of that contradicts the fact that, as usual, you are wrong! LOL

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,


Well, I still disagree, but admit your logic is a lot better and well reasoned this time.  We don't necessarily disagree on anything, but its a matter of semantics and maybe frequency of use.

But, being okay with something to varying degrees conceptually is different than admitting that, IF we had to classify  architectural (and we don't, but we're in that discussion by choice) features that intentionally seek to create greater differentiation among similar shots is NOT intended or considered to be proportional in the strictest sense. 

Proportional is miss by a foot, be a foot away, miss by two feet be 2 feet away, etc.  Miss by 3 feet and be 20 yards away is not a straight line relationship in treating an approach shot, nor in the resulting putt.

I didn't read Tom Doak's premise that way.
 
I read it in the sense that the greater the margin of error, the greater the penalty.
 
Your definition of proportionality seems purely linear.
 
I don't see much difference in a 1' vs a 2' putt, nor a 20' putt vs a 25' putt.

Not bad architecture, especially if you want a hard course (many of those old RTJ greens are really artful two tier greens) but conceptually, should be limited, if not trying to make the course too hard.  Even on better tests of golf, some question how often architecture should run counter to intuition, rewarding golfers for aiming away from the flag?  It's not all or nothing, but somewhere overuse of non proportional architecture crosses the line from good to goofy design.

Admittedly, wherever there is a line in architecture - fw to rough, turf to sand, top of ridge to bottom of ridge, there is a quickly changing difference in how a ball is treated.  That is sort of the point of a hazard and sometimes, golfers don't understand that ground slope itself is a viable hazard over things that they see more clearly placed by the architect, especially when that slope hazard is IN and not adjacent to the intended target, and tiered greens are that by definition.

And, there is architectural value to many in that ah ha  moment of discovery when you figure out that is exactly what the architect is asking, and the fun of the 3 seconds of in flight entertainment of not knowing what will happen when ball hits ground.  And, the greater possibility of creating great bar stories!  To me, anyway, but maybe not to tour pros, at least as a steady diet of architecture induced safe play.

BTW, someone mentioned the good bounces.  A punch bowl green (which I love) is a theoretical example of intentional reverse proportional penalty, it doesn't matter where you hit it, you end up the same place as someone who sticks it on the green.  Room for that, too, at least in my book (and I used kick slopes often) And, fun, but some better players and tour pros would say they are verboten because they help poor shots.

I don't count Redan holes as lucky bounces - the architecture is intentionally rewarding a certain type of shot, which is okay, but some golfers who can't play the favored shot may bitch about either the bad bounce or bad luck, and its neither, really.  Incorporating prevailing wind into design is similar to the Redan slope, and I usually do it so golfers who can hit certain shots benefit more on an individual hole more than others who can;t, but of course, it is still up to the individual to plan and execute.

All of which makes strict proportionality undesirable, not to mention unattainable, but its more likely to be favored by most competitors to whom score is the most important thing.  For those who want to have fun, its certainly not the top priority when selecting a course to play.

But, none of that contradicts the fact that, as usual, you are wrong! LOL
 
Which means that I'm right.
 
Globally, the entire golf course constitutes proportionality.
 
Hit the middle of the fairway vs the rough.
Hit the rough vs the woods
 
Hit the green vs the greenside bunker or pond
Hit the green vs the greenside rough.
 
It's all proportional.
 
You have so much to learn and I can only devote so much time to your education

[Jeff_Brauer]

Only in Pat's twisted mind could him being wrong equate with him being right.....unless its really Donald Trump posting in Pat's name?


In seriousness, yes on a broad scale your fw to rough statement is correct.  I was trying to add a bit of nuance to it.  Nuance has never been in your wheel house......Nuisance, yes, nuance, no.


BTW, in nuanced thinking, missing the green in a bunker vs. missing the green in a pond would be a different degree of proportionality in a few ways.  If you have a 10 foot miss and may still get up and down (the theoretical half stroke penalty) vs water and possible stroke and distance, at least a one stroke penalty and maybe more, depending on the situation.


Some architects (most maybe) would at least consider a bunker over a pond on longer approach shots, or at least give more bail out on the far side on longer approaches with ponds, to proportionally balance the challenge, or give a way round.  I mentioned save bunkers along a lake earlier, and those are examples of trying to get a two step penalty.


Are there any rules saying they have to do that?  No, just public opinion, normally driven by better players.  Are there great holes with water next to a long par 4 green?  Of course.  I am not advocating for strict proportionality, mind you, just trying to explain it to you and others of similar limited mental capacity.


It is what it is.


Cheers.