[Mark_Fine]

John,

Nice try but what does that mean?  What is fair and unfair when it comes to golf?  When you have a game where a 350 yard drive counts the same as a 1” putt, fair and unfair make no sense.  Regarding luck; what amount of luck is ok vs not ok?  Please define?  Yes there is a point when the game (course set up/design) can get stupid or goofy but don’t call it unfair. 


Alex,
Please define what fair and unfair is when it comes to “championship” golf? 


Note to all; I am not trying to bash Geoff Shackelford.  I consider him a friend.  But he can’t be happy with that article’s title.  It is against the spirit of the game and what he says (because he is well respected) influences a lot of people.  I meet with golf committees all over the country and I cringe when members talk about how “unfair” their bunkers are because they are “inconsistent” or how that bunker 20 yards short of the green should be removed to make the hole more “fair”,...  I can go on and on.


Tough but fair - Soo subjective, means nothing.  Don’t use it!!

[Mike Wagner]

John,

Nice try but what does that mean?  What is fair and unfair when it comes to golf?  When you have a game where a 350 yard drive counts the same as a 1” putt, fair and unfair make no sense.  Regarding luck; what amount of luck is ok vs not ok?  Please define?  Yes there is a point when the game (course set up/design) can get stupid or goofy but don’t call it unfair. 


Alex,
Please define what fair and unfair is when it comes to “championship” golf? 


Note to all; I am not trying to bash Geoff Shackelford.  I consider him a friend.  But he can’t be happy with that article’s title.  It is against the spirit of the game and what he says (because he is well respected) influences a lot of people.  I meet with golf committees all over the country and I cringe when members talk about how “unfair” their bunkers are because they are “inconsistent” or how that bunker 20 yards short of the green should be removed to make the hole more “fair”,...  I can go on and on.


Tough but fair - Soo subjective, means nothing.  Don’t use it!!

Can't think of many things about golf that aren't subjective. 

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
You are correct but the terms fair and unfair create a nightmare for golf course superintendents, golf architects, ... and the game has suffered for it.  What was once a pastime that had only two rules has now evolved to where you have a book approaching 200 pages to explain it!  Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is directed toward making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an "unfair" disadvantage.  This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds. 


Carnoustie was set up to provide a more balanced challenge for the best players in the world.  Leave it at that.

[Mark Kiely]

Faldo said something to the effect of Carnoustie played "firm and fast, but fair" on today's broadcast of the WGC-Bridgestone.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I think unfair is OK on its own to describe a green like 18 at Olympic when its cut too low.  I'm just not a huge fan of the "tough but fair" moniker.  Its absolutely meaningless...so much so I got a crisp $100 bill sitting here for anyone who can succinctly define it.

I don't think it's particularly difficult to define. I think most people have a "sense" of what it means, too.

Tough but fair is two things: tough and fair. Tough we can agree on, right? So the real question is defining "fair"?

To that, there are two possible definitions. One is that everyone plays the same holes under the same conditions, or as close to it as possible. (The weather at some tournaments, particularly the British Open, can sometimes be "unfair" if you're on the wrong side of the draw.) The Rules of Golf are "fair" because everyone plays under the same rules.

But the tougher definition is the semantic one, and my stab at it is something like this: the results of shots are generally rewarded or punished relative to their quality. As with the Rules of Golf, like situations are treated alike. To many this might mean reducing luck - two equally good shots don't result in one shot being four feet from the hole and another shot bouncing OB.

Note: I don't mean for this boundary or gradient between "luck" and results or whatever existing everywhere. Obviously, for example, if you have a cape hole, a ball that is 1 yard over the water on a line is a great result, perhaps, while one 1 yard short is a horrible result. Those "lines" or edges will exist everywhere - a ball a foot further up on a green at Augusta National will stay while one one foot short rolls off the front. I'm talking about play away from those "edge" cases, or minimized "edge" cases. If the majority of shots introduce these "edge" cases, the course is fluky and prone to "luck" more than skill. You won't ever eliminate luck entirely, but a "fair" design, IMO (as all of this is), reduces it to a manageable or expected level.

Need I go on?  We call most of the above rub of the green and some we might just call poor design or stupid setups.

No, we don't. Not the rules officials among us, anyway. Kinda ironic you're complaining about the use of the words "tough but fair" and then take this misstep.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
Take a look at some of my examples and tell me why they are fair or unfair.  Maybe then you will realize why those two words should be banned! They are just the wrong words to use because they are far too arbitrary and can't be defined. Fair for who and unfair for who? 
By the way, trying to "reduce" luck leads to mostly bad consequences and is in part why the game has gotten so expensive.   


Mark,
Sad if Faldo said that.  He must have seen Geoff’s article. 

[SL_Solow]

Putting aside the obvious, pointed out earlier, that Geoff  likely did not write the headline and the article never used the term, this is an old argument dating back to the golden age.  Joshua Crane and Max Behr, aided by others such as Dr. Mac, debated what can be termed fairness in GCA with Crane arguing (sorry for oversimplifying) that in order for golf to qualify as a competitive sport, elements of luck should be minimized. Behr and others took the opposite position. Our own Bob Crosby wrote a very instructive essay on this topic which can be found in the "In MY Opinion" section of this site.  We can all reach our own conclusions and while Crane's system for analyzing and evaluating courses is a somewhat over the top, Behr and Crane treated this topic with a significant amount of thought which might be instructive to the somewhat conclusory arguments contained in this thread.

[Mark_Fine]

Erik,
Good essay pointed out by SL Solow.  I am guessing by your comments you would side with Crane.  Unfortunately this is what leads to what I consider bland and sterile and over maintained golf courses. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark, Shel - I think that's why you're not getting the unanimity of opinion on this that you might have expected (and normally would've likely had), ie
a - because to my eyes (and perhaps to many), Carnoustie neither looked liked nor played like a bland, sterile and over-maintained course. As presented/set-up for the Open, it looked to be what it has been for decades and decades -- ie, the toughest and yet most straightforward (fairest?) test on a rota of classic/historic courses, and
b) I'm not so sure that, as presented for the Open, Max Behr would've had any issues with Carnoustie as a playable and multi-faceted test of golf at the highest level -- as evidenced in part by the fact that short-hitting 61 year old Berhard Langer could more than hold his own against many a long hitter half his age
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Peter,
We are not arguing about Carnoustie and/or how it was set up for The Open.  I loved it.  It was great.  Just don’t call it tough but fair.  What the hell does fair mean?  If would have happened to have rained a lot a month or so leading up to the tournament making the rough thicker and more nasty would it have then been tough but unfair?  When is the line from fair to unfair crossed?  Is it when Berhard can’t make the cut? 

[Kalen Braley]

Mark,


Once again terrific questions all of them.  I suppose the only thing missing here is the "everything is right in front of you" nonsense to go along with "tough but fair".


Cliches abound in every walk of life, and golf is no exception...but these ones certainly need to go!

[jeffwarne]

The phrase "tough but fair" used to make me want to puke..
but after watching the US Open and the contrived efforts at overmanaging daily "setup" (tough and stupid)
vs. the Open Championship
.......I think I now understand the phrase.

[Duncan Cheslett]

A totally flat course with no hidden hazards, completely consistent bunkers, and level greens would be very "fair". Stretch it to 7800 yards and it would be "tough" as well.


It would also in all probability be mind-numbingly dull.


 

[Sean_A]

Golf is inherently unfair in terms of AM/PM tee times so there isn't much point in that regard, plus over the long haul for tour golfers anyway, it evens out.  The only other way I think of a course to be unfair is if there is human intervention to alter the course mid-round ala Shinny and green watering.  Otherwise, I am not sure what the term "fair" means...and I am not sure that people who use the term know what it means except from a personal PoV...in which case that isn't fair because its an opinion which may favour some over others.  All in all, "fair" isn't a very good word to describe a course, but its been used so often and for so long that those such as me, simply dismiss the sentence without a thought. 

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

He must have saw Geoff’s article.

If we're going to be pedants, can we at least do it using the English language.  Seen.

[Tim Leahy]

Isn't fair a synonym for playable in this case? If the statement was tough but playable would your reaction be different? Semantics. LOL.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Take a look at some of my examples and tell me why they are fair or unfair.  Maybe then you will realize why those two words should be banned! They are just the wrong words to use because they are far too arbitrary and can't be defined. Fair for who and unfair for who?

For everyone. I gave my definition - that generally speaking and away from the "edges," shots are punished or rewarded based on their quality.

I disagree those words need to be "banned," because I think that's a perfectly valid definition. I once played a golf course that was new, and improperly set up. Lob wedges that hit the front edge of the green would bound off the back. Yet a 7-iron you attempted to bounce onto the fairway would almost plug in the soft fairways. The greens were rock hard, the fairways soft. It wasn't a fair setup because you had no reasonable way to play the holes.

Sad if Faldo said that.  He must have saw Geoff’s article.

I think a bunch of people will say something like "tough but fair" and Faldo saying it doesn't indicate at all that he saw Geoff's article.

Good essay pointed out by SL Solow.  I am guessing by your comments you would side with Crane.  Unfortunately this is what leads to what I consider bland and sterile and over maintained golf courses.

No, you've not understood my definition if you think it leads to "bland" and "sterile" or "over-maintained" golf courses. I've played at the Old Course and shots did generally what I expected them to do. I flew it 95 yards on the Road Hole and let it bounce and roll the remaining 85… just as I expected it would. It didn't just suddenly hit a soft, wet spot and stop rolling. The ball rolled the same all day. It was fair. Or maybe you think the Old Course is bland, sterile, and over-maintained?

Peter, great post. Tim, too.

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
I corrected my typing error (not easy posting from your iPhone).  I was also "half" joking about Faldo reading Geoff's post.  I have heard Faldo use that word before and I cringe.  He of all people should know better.

Tim,
Playable is a more valid word to use.  It is relative but it can be defined.  Fair is much more nebulous and more importantly leads to all kinds of problems when trying to reach that goal. 

Erik,

I hear your argument about a course that is poorly or stupidly set up.  I get that but that doesn't mean it is unfair?  I hate soft greens and firm approaches or vice versa but I don't describe that as unfair.  It is just poor maintenance practice. 


Please define fair and unfair for us and then this will all be settled?  Or better yet, explain why the following situations are fair or unfair but most importantly WHY?
- The hole locations on #13 and #15 at Shinnecock Hills on Saturday- Two 320 yard drives hit a foot apart, one rolls into a divot and one does not- Your approach shot ends up in a sandy waste area at Pine Valley in a deer or human footprint- There is a bunker right in the middle of the fairway - Your tee shot requires a 120 yard carry over water?- Your ball ends up on the macadam road crossing the 1st and 18th fairway on The Old Course- You hit a “great" drive and you have a blind shot to the green- You hit your putt a touch too hard and it rolls off the false front on the green and 25 yards down the fairway- Your shot plugs in a bunker- There is a large tree next to the green with limbs hanging over it- The greens are rolling at 14 leaving it almost impossible to stop the ball within five feet of the cup

[Mark_Fine]

I posted this passage out of our book a long time ago.  Just so everyone knows where I am coming from (if they don't already  ), I am posting it again.  I recognize that "fair" it is just a word but that word casuses serious problems when used to describe golf and golf course architecture in general.  So much so, that when we interviewed/worked with Gil Hanse on the book he said to me, "Mark if you accomplish anything with the book, hopefully the word "fair" falls out of use." Forrest and I couldn't agree with him more.


The Concept of Fairness
The modern pursuit of fairness and equity has not necessarily been good for the game of
golf. A pastime that once had only two rules, golf has now evolved to where a typed
booklet of over 150-pages is required to explain the game. Ever since it was decided that “play it as it lies” and “the rub of the green” needed to be tweaked, the game seems to have suffered.  Far too much time, too much money, and too much attention is now directed to making sure every good shot is rewarded and that perfect playing conditions leave no one with an “unfair” disadvantage. This mindset has led to expensive maintenance practices and less creative and more sterile playing grounds. Heaven forbid that two similar shots could potentially result in two distinct outcomes—one good and one bad. That would just not be fair—or would it?

Have golf architects and the clients they work with forgotten what golf is really all about? The game was never meant to emulate physics, where every action equates to an equal and opposite reaction. As with life, golf is expected to have ups and downs. Some days a golfer might do everything right, and yet the result still turns out bad. Other times, a
lucky bounce or carom might lead to good fortune even when the swing and all
its results should have led to an awful mess. Golf can teach us many lessons
about life, but only if we allow skill, luck, and fate all to remain part of the game.

If all the uncertainty and unpredictable outcomes are conditioned away, what tests and challenges will remain? Aren’t those bumps in the road of life just like the hazards of golf? In many ways it is the triumph of overcoming setbacks that keeps us energized. Were it not for ordeals, it would only be a matter of time until we would become complacent and our lives (or rounds) filled with boredom.

When we think of “fairness,” we are reminded of a situation that occurred at The Old Course at St. Andrews. Walking up the 18th fairway after hitting our final tee shots, one member of our group cringed at the site of his ball lying in the middle of Grannie Clark’s Wynd, a macadam road that crosses the 1st and 18th fairways. The thought crossed his mind, “Here we are playing the grandest of all golf courses and this perfectly struck drive on the final hole has found a lone stretch of rockhard road in the center of the fairway. What a bad break. What poor luck to deserve such an unfair fate.” You see, in Scotland, and especially on The Old Course, you still play it as it lies, and this little macadam path is considered an integral part of the golf course. There is no free drop to gain relief. No automatic allowance that says you can place the ball back on forgiving turf to play your next stroke. No, you are stuck with the situation and you deal with it the best you can.

As the golfer prepared to play his shot from the tightest of lies, one couldn’t help but notice the spectators watching his misfortune from the fence rail along the hole. As his club swept toward the ball and picked it cleanly off the hard dark surface there was a sense of elation as it rose quickly and somehow managed to scurry up onto the green surface, coming to rest about 30 feet from the flagstick.

The golfer’s walk to the green was neither one he nor his playing partners would ever forget. Every one of the on-lookers had applauded the shot. Two putts later, the golfer scored one of the greatest pars, and most memorable moments of his golfing career. And all thanks to what looked like a dire and “unfair” circumstance.

But that is golf. Many of the elements that add so much richness to the game may
be lost in our pursuit of “fairness.” There is too much at stake. The concept of fairness
must be tempered at all cost.

[A.G._Crockett]

The phrase "tough but fair" used to make me want to puke..
but after watching the US Open and the contrived efforts at overmanaging daily "setup" (tough and stupid)
vs. the Open Championship
.......I think I now understand the phrase.

I think this is the point.
The term "fair" has been a trigger word on this site from Day One, and while I agree that it has very limited use, a knee-jerk reaction to the use of fair seems myopic.  Carnoustie and Shinnecock illustrate that perfectly.
If the players who go out early play in one set of WEATHER conditions, and the players who go out later in the day face different weather conditions, that's not an example of fairness, and I don't think Geoff was saying that at all.
But at Shinnecock on Saturday, by the USGA's own admission, we saw a course setup guaranteed that the players in the afternoon would be facing conditions totally different from players in the morning without regard to weather; that didn't happen at Carnoustie, and it never really does, except with the USGA is conducting one of their Amateur Hours of course setup.  Doesn't happen at ANGC, doesn't happen at the PGA, doesn't happen at regular Tour stops.  Happens more often than not at the US Open.

[Kalen Braley]

AG,


While I agree with your last post in concept, I think "unfair" things do occur at The Open.


I recall about 15 years ago where the morning groups had benign and perfect playing conditions and most shot good scores...while the afternoon groups encountered fierce conditions of strong wind, rain, and cold...and many of them ended up missing the cut as a result.


Not that i'm justifying the USGA's actions, but wasn't the afternoon weather on Shinnecock that led to those dicey greens not in the forecast?

[Mark_Fine]

What about downhill skiers who are first down the mountain in virgin snow before it gets all rutted up and/or ideal lines are established for those going later?



Maybe we should build a dome over golf courses to block out the sun, wind and weather in an attempt to keep the playing field as level as possible? 


I used to love the old way of “setting up” a golf course.  I remember asking my friend many years ago who was a long time member at Royal Birkdale what they did to get the course ready for The Open?  He looked at me funny like he didn’t know what I meant.  He said they might throw a little extra grass seed on the course, put up the stands, open up the back tees, and tell the boys to come in and have a go.  But that wouldn’t be “fair” anymore 

[Kalen Braley]

If anything most UK courses seem to more unfair with the wide spread usage of pot bunkers.


One ball rolls in where its a chip out sideways, and another skirts it by a yard, rolls another 50 and leaves a wedge approach.  That seems to be very unfair for two balls hit to almost the exact spot.


At least US style bunkers leave you a recovery where you can advance the ball most if not all the way to the green.

[Mark_Fine]

Kalen,
I couldn't tell if you were joking or not with your last post 


I am sure someone like Tom Doak is constantly thinking about "fairness" when he designs his golf courses.  Last thing he would want would be to have a decent shot get unfairly penalized or someone for example hit into one of his fairway hazards and not have a shot to the green.  You won't see that happen on a Tom Doak design (or would you) 

[Mark_Fine]

I think everyone knows the "root cause" of the whole "fairness" issue is stroke play vs match play.  If we were only talking about match play it would hardly be an issue.  Each player would be facing the same weather, same course conditions, same design brilliance or design stupidity,..., and would have to deal with it - one hole at a time. 


But regardless, the pursuit of fairness is not good for golf.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()