WEBVTT - Golf Architecture 101: Fairness 0:00:00.280 --> 0:00:04.760 Should fairness be considered an important thing in golf course design. 0:00:05.320 --> 0:00:08.200 That's what I'm talking about today with PJ Clark in 0:00:08.240 --> 0:00:11.719 this installment of our Golf Architecture one oh one series. 0:00:12.200 --> 0:00:23.400 I'm Garrett Morrison and this is designing golf all right, PJ, 0:00:23.600 --> 0:00:24.479 welcome back to the pod. 0:00:25.000 --> 0:00:26.520 Thanks for having me. I'm excited. 0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:29.840 I love getting into the hot button issues of today. 0:00:30.360 --> 0:00:33.320 The number one hot topic on the PGA Tour on 0:00:33.360 --> 0:00:36.599 a weekly basis fairness and how do we achieve it. 0:00:36.840 --> 0:00:39.880 I'm ready to get listen. Some people say designing golf 0:00:40.000 --> 0:00:43.560 is too controversial. I say, I want all the smoke. 0:00:44.000 --> 0:00:46.560 I want this podcast to be on the forefront. 0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:48.960 Finger on the pulse here. I mean, this is the 0:00:49.000 --> 0:00:51.760 pulse of humanity today. Everything's got to be fair and 0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:52.400 down the middle. 0:00:52.560 --> 0:00:57.960 So absolutely yeah. Well, to start off, would you consider 0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:00.640 yourself a member of the fairness? 0:01:02.480 --> 0:01:05.640 I think, like in a vacuum, probably like I. 0:01:05.280 --> 0:01:06.880 I I think I'm too. 0:01:07.160 --> 0:01:10.640 My my logical brain wants to be rewarded for good 0:01:10.640 --> 0:01:13.880 shots and penalized for bad shots. I I don't want 0:01:13.920 --> 0:01:16.759 to say I disagree with a lot of what Scotty 0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:20.280 commonly says. As I as I look up the ladder 0:01:20.319 --> 0:01:24.440 to my chief of the fair police here. But I 0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:30.119 I understand the the arguments against it, and that having 0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:32.840 some aspect of luck in a game of chance is 0:01:33.080 --> 0:01:35.679 h I mean, it's part of the game, right, That's 0:01:35.720 --> 0:01:39.080 that's why it's not played on a simulator, even though 0:01:39.120 --> 0:01:41.400 I guess now we do have a simulator Golf League. 0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:45.840 It seems like you already have pieces of the upcoming 0:01:46.240 --> 0:01:50.520 lesson lodged in your brain, probably because you've sat in 0:01:50.600 --> 0:01:54.400 on many discussions between Andy and Brendan on the shotgun 0:01:54.480 --> 0:01:58.560 start about fairness and golf course design and Scotty Shuffler's 0:01:58.600 --> 0:02:00.840 comments on it. You know, the number one player in 0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:06.000 the world right now seems positively obsessed with the idea 0:02:06.600 --> 0:02:10.359 of fairness, although he doesn't He's not like Terrel Hatton, 0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:16.400 you know, whereas Hatton gets extremely angry at unfair elements 0:02:16.480 --> 0:02:19.360 in golf courses, even though he is a great player 0:02:19.440 --> 0:02:22.440 at the old course, Terrel Hatton always baffles me. It's 0:02:22.440 --> 0:02:26.160 like he's he's best at doing what he hates, which 0:02:26.200 --> 0:02:28.799 I guess is a sort of curse and and kind 0:02:28.840 --> 0:02:34.720 of maybe explains his his you know, a touchy personality, 0:02:35.080 --> 0:02:35.960 but it's not. 0:02:35.919 --> 0:02:38.720 A major championship until Terrell Haddon throws a tag from 0:02:39.280 --> 0:02:42.000 on a golf hole that he doesn't like. It's kind 0:02:42.000 --> 0:02:43.640 of like a badge of honor these days. 0:02:43.840 --> 0:02:46.960 It's a it's a tradition at this point. But in 0:02:47.000 --> 0:02:52.040 any case, fairness does commonly come up in discussions of 0:02:52.639 --> 0:02:57.919 professional golf right now, and it's one of those areas 0:02:58.080 --> 0:03:02.120 where I think golf are architecture nerds and people who 0:03:02.360 --> 0:03:04.840 just follow the pro tours and that's it. It's one 0:03:04.880 --> 0:03:07.840 of those areas where they cross over and kind of 0:03:08.320 --> 0:03:11.040 maybe end up in discussion with each other. And I 0:03:11.040 --> 0:03:14.720 think there are very different perspectives on both sides of 0:03:14.720 --> 0:03:17.359 that divide, which is why I think this topic is 0:03:17.720 --> 0:03:20.600 really interesting. So why don't we start off with the 0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:24.799 basic question here? What do you think it means for 0:03:24.919 --> 0:03:26.560 a golf course to be fair? 0:03:28.280 --> 0:03:32.160 I think good shots should be rewarded with either, you know, 0:03:32.680 --> 0:03:36.320 kicks down the fairway or short lies or good lies 0:03:36.440 --> 0:03:39.880 or angles into the green. We've talked about angles plenty 0:03:40.120 --> 0:03:44.200 on this series so far. But I also think missus 0:03:44.200 --> 0:03:46.800 should be penalized. Now, I think where I'm going to 0:03:46.880 --> 0:03:49.480 get myself into trouble is when you gave me this 0:03:49.600 --> 0:03:53.560 prompt to think about. I think I kind of agree 0:03:54.040 --> 0:03:59.120 with the Scotty line of thinking logically that it should 0:03:59.120 --> 0:04:03.520 be based on how bad your miss is. It should 0:04:04.040 --> 0:04:09.640 further misses should be further penalized than closer misses, if 0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:15.320 that makes sense, the penalty, the penalty should be exponential 0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:16.520 to how bad the shot is. 0:04:17.920 --> 0:04:21.000 This is something that a lot of pros believe and 0:04:21.040 --> 0:04:24.400 that actually our colleague, Joseph Lamangna talks about a lot. 0:04:24.560 --> 0:04:30.560 Joseph gets frustrated by courses where wide misses are not 0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:36.559 as penalized as or or you know, or just as 0:04:36.600 --> 0:04:41.120 penalized as narrow misses. Right and Tory Pines often comes 0:04:41.200 --> 0:04:43.960 up as an example of this kind of golf course 0:04:43.960 --> 0:04:46.719 where it doesn't matter if you miss the fairway by 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:50.000 five yards or by fifty yards. It's going to be 0:04:50.240 --> 0:04:54.159 a similar situation because what you have out there is 0:04:54.279 --> 0:04:57.800 just a lot of green, irrigated rough, and once you're 0:04:57.839 --> 0:05:00.320 off the fairway, it just doesn't really matter or that 0:05:00.520 --> 0:05:05.240 much where you are in that rough. And that, in 0:05:05.320 --> 0:05:12.560 Joseph's mind, as someone who analyzes professional tournament courses, is 0:05:13.080 --> 0:05:18.080 frustrating and an indication of ineffective tournament course design. I'm 0:05:18.120 --> 0:05:21.320 gonna try to introduce some complexity to that idea in 0:05:21.760 --> 0:05:25.159 this podcast maybe and bring up some challenges to it. 0:05:25.200 --> 0:05:28.200 But it certainly stands to reason, right, it seems like 0:05:28.279 --> 0:05:32.919 a reasonable proposal that that should be how we go 0:05:33.040 --> 0:05:34.720 about testing golfers. 0:05:35.000 --> 0:05:38.680 I just I I it doesn't make sense that if 0:05:38.680 --> 0:05:40.880 you missed a fairway by five yards and you missed 0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:44.200 a fairway by fifty yards that even I mean at 0:05:44.240 --> 0:05:46.160 some of these courses. We were looking at it when 0:05:46.160 --> 0:05:48.760 we were at Oakmont, Like if you blew it way 0:05:48.839 --> 0:05:52.080 left on one into where the galleries were, you had 0:05:52.080 --> 0:05:54.359 the trampled down rough that you could hit off of 0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:55.159 pretty easily. 0:05:55.680 --> 0:06:00.159 Like that, just that doesn't make sense that. 0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:04.760 You should be quote unquote rewarded for a worst shot, 0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:05.840 you know what I mean? 0:06:06.640 --> 0:06:10.760 M Yeah, And it's an issue of fairness. This is 0:06:10.800 --> 0:06:14.560 the essence of what we're talking about when we talk 0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:17.200 about fairness and golf course design. And this kind of 0:06:17.240 --> 0:06:25.360 stuff drives professionals especially crazy because their whole life is 0:06:25.600 --> 0:06:31.000 geared toward executing golf shots well, hitting the ball well. 0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:36.159 They study and they bleed for their entire lives to 0:06:36.279 --> 0:06:38.680 do that. Thing well, and when they show up at 0:06:38.720 --> 0:06:42.040 a golf course where that doesn't give them a significant advantage, 0:06:42.400 --> 0:06:45.080 or somebody who hasn't worked as hard and who doesn't 0:06:45.120 --> 0:06:48.720 hit the ball as well is ending up in similar 0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:52.880 or better positions than them, then that's going to be frustrating. 0:06:53.560 --> 0:06:55.800 This is something that Scotti Scheffler has talked about. It's 0:06:55.839 --> 0:06:59.520 an understandable frustration because if that's if that's your life, 0:07:00.120 --> 0:07:04.480 then then you then you wanted to pay off and 0:07:04.480 --> 0:07:07.279 and so that seems to be the basis from which 0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:13.240 a lot of pro golfers criticize the unfairness of golf courses. 0:07:13.440 --> 0:07:17.960 It defies the very thing that they have worked hard 0:07:18.000 --> 0:07:20.480 to do. So kind of understandable. 0:07:20.800 --> 0:07:23.200 I think it makes sense, right if you're if you're 0:07:24.200 --> 0:07:29.200 aiming small to miss small, and you you do miss mall. Unfortunately, 0:07:29.280 --> 0:07:33.240 obviously no one is just blatantly trying to blow it 0:07:33.280 --> 0:07:35.400 in the rough. I mean, at some points I guess 0:07:35.440 --> 0:07:37.480 you are, but that's a different discussion. 0:07:37.480 --> 0:07:39.600 I would probably say with the course set up. 0:07:39.720 --> 0:07:42.040 But if you're aiming small and miss mall and you 0:07:42.080 --> 0:07:46.160 miss mall versus some guy that completely goes off the 0:07:46.240 --> 0:07:48.280 radar and he ends up at a better spot than you. 0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:52.120 I I I understand a level of frustration that would 0:07:52.160 --> 0:07:54.480 come with that, that would that would piss me off 0:07:54.600 --> 0:07:55.040 for sure. 0:07:56.160 --> 0:08:00.640 Okay, So a couple of related ideas to this would 0:08:00.680 --> 0:08:07.200 be that fair golf courses are generally understood by the 0:08:07.240 --> 0:08:10.680 fairness police primarily to be the golf courses where the 0:08:10.720 --> 0:08:14.080 elements of randomness and luck are kept to a minimum. 0:08:14.360 --> 0:08:18.280 So it's not just golf courses are fair if they 0:08:18.560 --> 0:08:22.440 reward good shots and penalize bad shots. They're they're fair 0:08:22.600 --> 0:08:25.680 if there is a if if randomness is kind of 0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:28.240 kept out of it, because randomness is one of those 0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:32.440 things that can end up not rewarding good shots or 0:08:32.520 --> 0:08:36.640 not punishing poor shots. Right, So randomness and luck are 0:08:36.679 --> 0:08:41.280 kind of opposed to these ideas that we're talking about. 0:08:41.600 --> 0:08:43.600 I think that's where you kind of lose me because 0:08:43.640 --> 0:08:46.760 I again, like it's an outdoor sport. There are bumps, 0:08:46.800 --> 0:08:49.320 there are there are bruises, there are. 0:08:49.280 --> 0:08:50.280 Mounds in the fair way. 0:08:50.320 --> 0:08:52.400 You're gonna get a bad kick, Like this is not 0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:55.440 it's an outdoor sport. Like That's that would be my 0:08:55.520 --> 0:08:58.520 counter argument to that is that like, yeah, you can, 0:08:58.640 --> 0:09:01.200 you can draw it up correctly, and I do. I 0:09:01.240 --> 0:09:04.880 would argue that the difference between five and fifty yards 0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:08.040 off the fairway should be different in a vacuum, but 0:09:09.040 --> 0:09:10.000 you can't. 0:09:10.480 --> 0:09:12.560 The randomness within. 0:09:12.679 --> 0:09:17.360 That pocket five yards off the fairway, I think should 0:09:17.440 --> 0:09:20.040 exist and is fair to exist, because again it's an 0:09:20.040 --> 0:09:21.120 outdoor sport. 0:09:21.320 --> 0:09:24.120 Okay, Well, then what about fairness in the middle of 0:09:24.160 --> 0:09:24.720 a fairway? 0:09:26.720 --> 0:09:29.280 Yeah? Right, I mean you can get a bad kick, 0:09:29.559 --> 0:09:31.920 you can land in a divot like That's again, this 0:09:32.080 --> 0:09:34.360 is like part of That's that to me is part 0:09:34.400 --> 0:09:39.640 of the game more than this course is not set up. Well, 0:09:40.040 --> 0:09:43.680 if that makes if that if that's a cohesive argument 0:09:43.720 --> 0:09:45.160 to you, well. 0:09:45.000 --> 0:09:50.320 It's it's uh maybe exactly the definition of an uncohesive argument. 0:09:50.520 --> 0:09:53.240 There's a contradiction here, isn't there. I'm not saying that 0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:56.760 it's wrong, but there's a contradiction here saying we want 0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.440 good shots to be rewarded and bad shots to be punished. 0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:04.160 But but some element of randomness and luck is okay. Well, 0:10:04.160 --> 0:10:06.800 if you accept some element of randomness and luck, I 0:10:06.800 --> 0:10:09.800 guess the first question is how much of that? And 0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:13.960 the second question is, well, if we're accepting that, then 0:10:14.160 --> 0:10:17.240 you have to accept that if somebody, if two players 0:10:17.320 --> 0:10:20.120 hit the exact same drive, they might end up in 0:10:20.160 --> 0:10:23.760 completely different positions, whether they're on the fairway or off 0:10:23.760 --> 0:10:26.440 the fairway. Even if you limit the randomness and luck 0:10:26.480 --> 0:10:29.080 to just off the fairway, say two players hit it 0:10:29.320 --> 0:10:33.160 to exactly the same place, Well, if that area is 0:10:33.360 --> 0:10:38.000 random and chancy, then they might end up in completely 0:10:38.000 --> 0:10:39.840 different situations. 0:10:40.880 --> 0:10:41.160 Yeah. 0:10:41.280 --> 0:10:43.199 I mean my counter argument to that would be, just 0:10:43.280 --> 0:10:45.800 hit the fairway. That's what we're all trying to do, right, 0:10:46.000 --> 0:10:48.720 Like you could just that's kind of the get out 0:10:48.760 --> 0:10:51.080 of jail free card here is like, oh, you don't 0:10:51.520 --> 0:10:56.920 if you don't like the wiregrass at Pinehurst last year, Scott, 0:10:56.920 --> 0:10:59.640 he just hit the fairways man like that. It's kind 0:10:59.640 --> 0:11:02.000 of it's what we're all trying to do here at 0:11:02.040 --> 0:11:06.000 the end of the day. But I think where I 0:11:06.120 --> 0:11:10.760 understand the fair police argument is that it is not 0:11:11.800 --> 0:11:14.240 the penalties I feel like sometimes are. 0:11:14.080 --> 0:11:19.080 Not proportional to a miss. But I think. 0:11:20.280 --> 0:11:23.240 There is an element of randomness that in and outdoor 0:11:23.240 --> 0:11:26.160 sport is completely agreeable. I mean, you look at it 0:11:26.160 --> 0:11:30.880 at other sports like baseball. Every ballpark has different dimensions. 0:11:30.880 --> 0:11:32.800 You hit a ball that's going to be out at 0:11:33.360 --> 0:11:36.160 Yankee Stadium. That's a fly ball in somebody else's field. 0:11:36.280 --> 0:11:40.320 Like that's normal, Like, that's part of sports. That's part 0:11:40.360 --> 0:11:45.559 of the game. But I do think on a mis 0:11:45.600 --> 0:11:49.800 hit or on a miss there should be greater penalties 0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:52.000 based on how bad it actually is. 0:11:52.720 --> 0:11:57.160 Baseball is a good example because the field in baseball 0:11:57.480 --> 0:12:01.400 is to a degree very standardized, more so than a 0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:05.240 golf course. And baseball you have the same dimensions of 0:12:05.280 --> 0:12:10.720 the diamond. But where the differences come in is that 0:12:10.840 --> 0:12:14.640 outfield wall basically, and the side of the overall size 0:12:14.679 --> 0:12:18.600 of the ballpark bounces off of the wall. Sometimes bounces 0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:22.160 off of the wall at a at a baseball stadium 0:12:22.360 --> 0:12:26.760 are are very chancy and introduce an element of luck 0:12:26.880 --> 0:12:30.160 into the game that might not be there if the 0:12:30.200 --> 0:12:34.200 fields were completely standardized and had all the same dimensions 0:12:34.240 --> 0:12:39.439 and all the same you know, structures around them. But 0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:46.280 so baseball does kind of welcome in that element of randomness, 0:12:46.920 --> 0:12:52.360 and golf, I would argue, let's in more. Yeah, and 0:12:52.400 --> 0:12:58.040 there's And so that is where the complexity and difficulty 0:12:58.200 --> 0:13:03.800 of this discussion arrives, you know, because we have to 0:13:03.880 --> 0:13:08.720 ask how much of this randomness are we willing to admit. 0:13:08.760 --> 0:13:11.280 Well, even it's not even a it doesn't even have 0:13:11.320 --> 0:13:12.960 to be a golf course. Then when you're thinking about 0:13:12.960 --> 0:13:17.000 tournament golf, like in baseball, everybody is hitting in the 0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:20.680 same two and a half to three hour window in 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:24.560 the same stadium. But in golf, you're playing, you know, 0:13:24.679 --> 0:13:27.439 six hours after somebody. The wind could change, the weather 0:13:27.480 --> 0:13:30.000 could change, it could be completely different. You're not playing 0:13:30.000 --> 0:13:32.680 the same you're playing the same course on the ground, 0:13:32.679 --> 0:13:35.240 but you're not playing the same course as guys that 0:13:35.320 --> 0:13:37.800 went out in the morning or in the afternoon based 0:13:37.800 --> 0:13:41.160 on what wave you are, whereas in baseball even you're 0:13:41.200 --> 0:13:46.240 more constrained, like everybody's playing at the same time in 0:13:46.400 --> 0:13:50.679 that given matchup versus in a tournament, you are completely 0:13:50.720 --> 0:13:54.000 at the whim of whatever time comes out of the 0:13:54.440 --> 0:13:56.439 USGA's lottery ball machine. 0:13:57.000 --> 0:14:00.400 Yeah, and golf is an individual sport, whereas baseball is, 0:14:00.559 --> 0:14:03.840 you know, one team against another. I think that in 0:14:03.880 --> 0:14:07.200 an individual sport, there's more room for those individuals to 0:14:07.360 --> 0:14:10.520 claim unfairness or that they didn't get they didn't get 0:14:10.559 --> 0:14:15.400 a proper shake in the proceedings. And so yeah, golf, 0:14:15.480 --> 0:14:20.840 golf definitely sets itself up to these these situations where 0:14:20.880 --> 0:14:25.440 people might might perceive some unfairness, and that, to me, 0:14:25.520 --> 0:14:28.240 that's part of what makes the game so interesting. But 0:14:28.640 --> 0:14:31.720 I want to touch on a couple other factors that 0:14:31.800 --> 0:14:34.440 I think sometimes lead people to say that a golf 0:14:34.480 --> 0:14:38.200 course is unfair. One has to do with categories of 0:14:38.320 --> 0:14:42.600 par because I get the sense that many players really 0:14:42.640 --> 0:14:47.000 hate when a par three can't easily be reached in 0:14:47.040 --> 0:14:50.800 one shot or a par four can't easily be reached 0:14:50.840 --> 0:14:55.320 in two shots. They believe that a you know, some 0:14:55.480 --> 0:14:59.800 kind of decent strike of the ball should reliably yield 0:15:00.200 --> 0:15:03.760 chance at a two put par. And they object to 0:15:03.800 --> 0:15:08.840 holes that push at the boundary of a higher par category. 0:15:09.200 --> 0:15:12.920 So they'll object to a par four that maybe kind 0:15:12.920 --> 0:15:15.400 of is almost a par five, or object to a 0:15:15.440 --> 0:15:19.000 par three that's almost a par four. Now moving in 0:15:19.040 --> 0:15:21.840 the other direction, they don't tend to complain if there's 0:15:21.920 --> 0:15:24.880 a par four that's almost a par three. And and 0:15:24.960 --> 0:15:28.000 so I think that this complaint about golf courses tends 0:15:28.040 --> 0:15:31.840 to be a little more easily dismissed. I don't think 0:15:31.880 --> 0:15:34.040 this is a matter of fairness. I think it's a 0:15:34.080 --> 0:15:37.040 matter of people's perception of par categories. 0:15:38.040 --> 0:15:40.920 Yeah, I mean, everybody wants the red numbers right, they don't. 0:15:40.960 --> 0:15:43.200 They don't like it. They don't like it when you make. 0:15:43.120 --> 0:15:45.760 It seems to be more about ego than than actually 0:15:46.360 --> 0:15:47.760 about the golf course, you know. 0:15:48.440 --> 0:15:51.200 I think I think if every if it was just 0:15:51.320 --> 0:15:53.680 you know, get a if the goal was which the 0:15:53.720 --> 0:15:56.280 goal is, but if it was framed as get around 0:15:56.320 --> 0:15:58.840 in as few shots as possible compared to everybody else, 0:15:58.880 --> 0:16:01.560 I feel like people would have less problems with maybe 0:16:01.560 --> 0:16:02.440 that kind of stuff. 0:16:03.600 --> 0:16:06.720 And then the last area where I think people sometimes 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:10.600 object to golf courses as unfair would be just when 0:16:10.680 --> 0:16:14.520 they see unexpected things, like when they see elements of 0:16:14.560 --> 0:16:17.000 a golf course that they're not used to seeing. So 0:16:17.760 --> 0:16:19.720 this might be a bunker in the middle of a 0:16:19.720 --> 0:16:24.200 fair way that's unfair, you know, or a blind shot 0:16:24.520 --> 0:16:28.440 that's unfair. But the reason those things might be perceived 0:16:28.480 --> 0:16:32.840 as unfair, I don't think is that they're inherently unfair. 0:16:32.960 --> 0:16:36.240 It's more that they're just unexpected and unusual. 0:16:36.640 --> 0:16:41.720 So from that standpoint of like a center line bunker 0:16:42.000 --> 0:16:46.040 or something crazy, you could even like, I mean, Andy 0:16:46.080 --> 0:16:49.160 talked a lot about it at Oakmont with the setup 0:16:49.160 --> 0:16:51.920 and the rough like where is the line to you, 0:16:52.480 --> 0:16:57.840 golf courses are between gimmick and fair because like I 0:16:57.920 --> 0:17:01.760 feel like, like you know, the Maya Cova Cave bunker, 0:17:01.840 --> 0:17:04.840 like that's just a gimmick, right like that that's there, 0:17:04.920 --> 0:17:07.720 everybody knows it's there. It's not really a matter of 0:17:07.840 --> 0:17:11.000 fair or not. It's just like that's just I feel 0:17:11.040 --> 0:17:14.399 like if it's there, there is a line that maybe 0:17:14.440 --> 0:17:17.679 crosses it. Maybe the rough at Oakmont could arguably cross it. 0:17:17.920 --> 0:17:20.199 Whereas like, it's not a question of fair anymore. This 0:17:20.320 --> 0:17:24.000 is just like it's a joke, gimmick of a setup. 0:17:24.840 --> 0:17:28.600 Right at Oakmont, the rough started to seem to some 0:17:28.680 --> 0:17:32.399 people to be almost a gimmick, and I think it 0:17:32.480 --> 0:17:37.200 probably was. But I was somewhat okay with it because 0:17:37.320 --> 0:17:40.600 the history, like the deep history of that course is 0:17:41.160 --> 0:17:44.359 very based on this idea that any shot off the 0:17:44.400 --> 0:17:48.679 fairway should be very severely punished. That was baked in 0:17:48.680 --> 0:17:51.399 to the identity of the course from the beginning. And 0:17:51.840 --> 0:17:55.320 so I don't think that justifies everything in a golf 0:17:55.359 --> 0:17:58.520 course design. You can't just go crazy just because somebody 0:17:58.840 --> 0:18:00.560 one hundred and twenty years ago I thought it was 0:18:00.680 --> 0:18:04.480 a good idea. But if it does have some sort 0:18:04.480 --> 0:18:07.320 of tradition and link to the identity of a golf course, 0:18:07.320 --> 0:18:09.480 then I tend to be more okay with it. I 0:18:09.560 --> 0:18:12.080 tend to also be more okay with it if a 0:18:12.119 --> 0:18:16.760 feature is based on some kind of natural, pre existing 0:18:17.000 --> 0:18:19.920 land form, and so actually, the cave bunker at my Acoba, 0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:24.159 I mean that's a natural land form, right, Yeah, I 0:18:24.160 --> 0:18:26.520 don't know, I mean it's not. I think the cave 0:18:26.520 --> 0:18:29.680 bunker at my Acoba is almost like a tourist attraction 0:18:29.880 --> 0:18:33.600 as opposed to a real golf course feature, because it 0:18:33.600 --> 0:18:37.040 doesn't seem to me to be all that much in play, 0:18:37.359 --> 0:18:40.000 even I might be wrong about that, but it just 0:18:40.000 --> 0:18:42.359 seems to be there for people to take photos of it, 0:18:42.880 --> 0:18:47.359 and so that's I guess, a little bit silly. But 0:18:47.720 --> 0:18:50.159 this is a great question, though, and I don't have 0:18:50.240 --> 0:18:52.159 an easy answer to it. In fact, this is like 0:18:52.240 --> 0:18:56.199 another episode of the podcast in and of itself what 0:18:56.440 --> 0:19:01.159 constitutes a gimmick in golf course design, because I don't know, 0:19:01.280 --> 0:19:05.800 Like when when people first saw the island green at 0:19:05.840 --> 0:19:10.359 TPC Sawgrass, it must have seemed kind of gimmicky because 0:19:10.520 --> 0:19:15.320 it was so unusual and so obviously constructed, Like there's 0:19:15.359 --> 0:19:18.920 no there's no way anybody could look at that and think, oh, well, 0:19:18.960 --> 0:19:20.520 Pete Die just found that there. 0:19:20.600 --> 0:19:21.600 Yeah, that was just there. 0:19:21.960 --> 0:19:24.000 Yeah. But now we're so used to it that it 0:19:24.040 --> 0:19:27.200 doesn't seem as gimmicky. So I think what we perceive 0:19:27.280 --> 0:19:29.480 to be a gimmick. It goes back to this issue 0:19:29.480 --> 0:19:32.119 of what I was talking about earlier, what we expect 0:19:32.160 --> 0:19:34.080 to see on a golf course and what we don't 0:19:34.119 --> 0:19:38.000 expect to see, And you know, architects have to work 0:19:38.600 --> 0:19:41.920 with those perceptions a little bit. They you know, if 0:19:41.960 --> 0:19:45.560 they introduced too many things that people would consider a gimmick, 0:19:45.640 --> 0:19:48.920 too many unexpected things into a golf course, then they 0:19:48.920 --> 0:19:52.280 can't be surprised when people regard it as gimmicky. But 0:19:52.480 --> 0:19:56.720 they can also challenge people, push against their expectations and 0:19:56.840 --> 0:20:00.359 occasionally introduce things that might be accused of gimme degree 0:20:00.480 --> 0:20:04.639 but have a certain purpose and philosophy behind them, and 0:20:04.680 --> 0:20:07.520 then eventually, maybe down the line, years down the line, 0:20:08.000 --> 0:20:12.920 those features will be accepted as less gimmicky and more familiar. 0:20:20.880 --> 0:20:23.480 This episode of Designing Golf is brought to you by 0:20:23.760 --> 0:20:28.359 the USGA Green Section. Now you've probably heard about the 0:20:28.480 --> 0:20:32.879 USGA's data collection tools. The GS three ball and the 0:20:32.920 --> 0:20:36.920 new USGA Moisture Meter. I've talked about both of those 0:20:36.960 --> 0:20:40.760 tools on past episodes of Designing Golf. Paired with the 0:20:40.880 --> 0:20:45.679 USGA's Deacon Course Management System, these tools collect data and 0:20:45.760 --> 0:20:49.320 create digital records that give you insights into the performance 0:20:49.400 --> 0:20:52.960 of your playing surfaces. But what makes these tools work 0:20:53.080 --> 0:20:57.480 even harder for you is the person that comes with 0:20:57.520 --> 0:21:03.080 every purchase, your Customer's Success Agronomist or CSA. The CSA 0:21:03.440 --> 0:21:07.400 not only gives tech support and product education, but can 0:21:07.480 --> 0:21:11.560 also assist in using this technology to better understand and 0:21:11.640 --> 0:21:17.680 improve your agronomic plan. Meet Brian Powell, the USGA Customer 0:21:17.760 --> 0:21:23.160 Success Agronomist with over thirty years of experience in the industry. 0:21:23.240 --> 0:21:27.160 Brian is the director of Gronomy at Old Chatham Golf 0:21:27.160 --> 0:21:31.080 Club and a past president of the Carolina's Golf Course 0:21:31.400 --> 0:21:37.080 Superintendent's Association, and he has served on many boards, panels 0:21:37.080 --> 0:21:41.120 and task forces. Brian is just part of the USGA 0:21:41.160 --> 0:21:45.200 support that you get with the Deacon Management System and 0:21:45.400 --> 0:21:49.960 the USGA Green Section's data collection tools. So check out 0:21:50.000 --> 0:21:53.240 what the USGA Green Section is offering. A lot of 0:21:53.240 --> 0:22:04.240 great stuff. All right, let's get back to the episode so, uh, 0:22:04.359 --> 0:22:08.000 let's go on to talking about a few specific features 0:22:08.400 --> 0:22:13.399 that might be deemed unfair in certain players' minds. This 0:22:13.600 --> 0:22:15.720 was the other part of the prompt that I gave 0:22:15.760 --> 0:22:21.040 you yesterday. What are specific features that that you would 0:22:21.080 --> 0:22:24.840 consider or that just people might consider unfair on a 0:22:24.840 --> 0:22:26.240 golf course. Let's get specific. 0:22:26.960 --> 0:22:29.040 Well, number number one thing they've popped into my head. 0:22:29.080 --> 0:22:32.960 And not to sound like a lovely Twitter account known 0:22:33.000 --> 0:22:37.280 as us golf Facts when I say this, but I 0:22:37.320 --> 0:22:41.720 do think there is something to the idea of maybe 0:22:41.800 --> 0:22:47.560 pin positioning or or even bunker positioning or penalty positioning, 0:22:47.640 --> 0:22:52.840 however you want to phrase it, that you're only impacting Uh, 0:22:52.920 --> 0:22:55.359 you know a player of one handiness or a player 0:22:55.400 --> 0:22:58.000 that only plays one type of shot. If you're putting 0:22:58.080 --> 0:23:03.400 all of the penalty or bunkers or hazards in one 0:23:03.520 --> 0:23:07.640 side of the course, I feel like having a disparity 0:23:07.840 --> 0:23:14.480 relatively even placing of pins and everything is probably the 0:23:14.520 --> 0:23:16.439 easiest way to get something fair. So if you have 0:23:16.520 --> 0:23:19.119 a course where you don't have that many green locations 0:23:19.160 --> 0:23:22.400 and every pin is tucked to the right side, are you, 0:23:22.400 --> 0:23:25.280 you know, discourinated against somebody that plays a draw? 0:23:25.720 --> 0:23:28.479 Are you are you after Patrick and Justin Reid? Are 0:23:28.520 --> 0:23:31.760 you should you be sued? Should should should the claiman 0:23:32.160 --> 0:23:33.520 send you a season desist? 0:23:33.760 --> 0:23:36.480 I don't want to go there, but ironically enough, it 0:23:36.640 --> 0:23:39.200 was the first thing that I thought of that, like, yeah, 0:23:39.280 --> 0:23:42.200 I could see how somebody could get really angry about 0:23:42.240 --> 0:23:44.880 that if that was a repeated issue for them. 0:23:45.080 --> 0:23:47.679 Mm hmm, yeah, this is this is a good point. 0:23:48.160 --> 0:23:52.720 What rationale is there to put pins in different places 0:23:52.840 --> 0:23:57.120 on a green? If not fairness and equity to all 0:23:57.160 --> 0:24:00.720 golfers playing the course? Why would you do that if 0:24:00.760 --> 0:24:04.240 it were not for this concept of fairness? So I 0:24:04.240 --> 0:24:07.160 think that's that's a really good example, and let's let's 0:24:07.359 --> 0:24:10.360 put that in, put that in the knapsack, and what 0:24:10.400 --> 0:24:11.040 others do you have? 0:24:11.840 --> 0:24:12.439 Uh? 0:24:12.840 --> 0:24:19.120 Buckers was was my second one on more again, are 0:24:19.160 --> 0:24:22.800