Can You Define 'Unfair'?

By: Jeffrey D. Brauer

I guess it's hard to define like pornography, but we know it when we see it. We often hear the claim, at all levels up to the PGA Tour. On a recent telecast the commentator called a long par-3 "unfair," with a tucked pin just over a sharp ridge that deflected nearly all the competitors' shots into a back bunker.

Better players argue that if the most skilled players cannot make a shot, then it's unfair, or at the very least poor architecture. This is a compelling argument. Some would argue that since all competitors played the same hole, it's not unfair, or that the pros are too "coddled." Or, that they had the option to play well away from the hole and two-putt for par.

Years ago, a tour pro told me that all competitors fire at the pins, knowing if they are hot they will win and, if cold, they'll lose. It's better to have fired and lost than to have never fired at all!

So, while nothing in the rules of golf guarantees a golfer the "right" to aim directly at the pin with assurances of success, conservative strategy at that level is not appreciated. Besides, I believe 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.

Put another way, a shot directly to the pin should be achievable with a good golf shot, since that is all golfers inherently want. Here is my logic:

Since golf's basic objective is to hole-out in your best possible score, a fundamental function of architecture in the spirit of the game is to allow that to happen.

In one worst-case scenario, most would agree that an island, volcano-shaped green with the hole on top would violate the spirit of the game since every tee shot would repeatedly roll back into the water hazard (unless it flew in the hole, which is unlikely). A dogleg par-3 you can't reach in one shot (or a 4 in two or 5 in three) making it impossible to make par with the normally allotted two putts, does too.

Looking at average players, features that prevent even finishing a hole are clearly unfair, such as:

• A forced carry longer than you can make.
• Any green too steep to allow a reasonable chance to hole a putt.
• A target - green or fairway - that is simply smaller than the average golfer can hit, such as 15-yard-wide fairways, when 35 to 40 yards is required.

Golfers want some "reasonable" and varied challenges, and architects strive to make a variety of holes, challenges and difficulty to enhance the experience. But when the difficulty level exceeds either the typical ability of average players to complete the hole, or better players to shoot near their average score, it becomes borderline unfair, or at least unnecessary.

That opinion of unfair is often skewed by your game. A 225-yard hitter may recommend fairway bunkers be placed at over 230 yards, for instance. Or, players who slice might deem a hole that strongly favors a hooked shot as unfair. In general, favoring one shot over another isn't unfair, but not allowing the hole-out of those who can't play advanced shots to finish the hole is not.

I reviewed the hole in question on that telecast; it was a 238-yard par-3. ShotLink data shows tour pros need targets sized at 10 percent of shot distance in depth and width to hit consistently. That pin area required a 24-yard circle, but it was actually about half that, with a large ridge directly in front that kicked balls over the green, and a sideways slope in the pin area to drain out between the bunkers.

The target size was smaller than a pro could hit and the green contours offered no help, since it didn't slope toward golfers to help stop shots. It seems that target could reasonably have been predicted as problematic.

So, the debate will probably rage forever on what is unfair. But I believe a pin location with no possibility of a great shot by great players, or holes with greatly reduced chances of average players finishing close to par, probably needs some redesign. While hard to define, time and experience help us all make the decision.

Jeffrey D. Brauer began his career as an apprentice in the Chicago area in 1977. His first project was Kemper Lakes, which shortly after hosted the 1989 PGA Championship. He formed GolfScapes in Arlington, Texas, in 1984. In the last 29 years he has designed and consulted on a wide spectrum of projects, ranging from partial renovations to international resorts. His recent work includes teaming with the design team of Pascuzzo and Pate on a remodel of the world-famous La Costa Resort & Spa in California, and renovations at Superior National Golf Course in Lutsen, Minn., and Mesquite Municipal Golf Course in Mesquite, Texas.

He has been a member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects since 1981, serving as President during its 50th Anniversary year in 1995-96. Jeff still studies the classic works - both old and new, and has played more than 75 of the best courses in the world.

Jeff gives many presentations and is a regular architecture columnist for many publications and websites, including Golf Course Industry and Cybergolf.com. He has also been a strong advocate for the "Tee it Forward" campaign and strives to make his courses fit the description of "fun to play every day."

Jeff's work has been spotlighted in most of the world's major golf magazines. Golf World ranked him as one of the top-20 golf course architects and Golf Inc. ranked him as the world's fourth-best value in golf architecture in 2010. Jeff's portfolio and reputation keep him at the forefront of desired designers for new courses, reconstruction and renovation projects. For more about Jeff, visit http://www.jeffreydbrauer.com/sites/courses/layout.asp?id=859&page=48451.

Tweet