“Truthfully,” says golf architect Jonathan Davison, born in England, trained in Ireland and now living in the Slovakian capital, Bratislava, “I don’t like to use the word fair, because I don’t think golf is meant to be fair, and I think a golf course that aims to be fair will lack interest and character. I love quirky stuff – I like the unfriendly bounces and the bad kicks you can get on a links.”

“I completely discount fairness, just as I do ‘playability’, says veteran American restoration specialist Ron Prichard. “Actually, in particular the latter angers me because each is a matter of personal interpretation. In golf the requirement is that we each evaluate our own particular strength and skills. Certain holes on every golf course might not accommodate ours, but perfectly suit others. Thus what one might call ‘unfair’ is perfectly ‘fair’ or playable for someone else. To use either of these terms in a discussion of golf, I believe is way too simplistic.”

Yet, for many golfers, not least most of the touring professionals who are the game’s most visible representatives, to say that a course is fair is close to being the highest praise it can receive. Why has this difference developed? And does it matter?

Where the professionals are concerned, a fondness for fairness isn’t too hard to understand. Pros use their skills to earn a living, which in many but not all cases quite handsome. It’s hardly surprising that such people would desire to have total control over what happens to them on the golf course. One bad bounce could cost a player a big win, after all.

For the rest of us, though, with nothing more at stake than pride, our handicap or perhaps the monthly medal, it is probably better to take a more relaxed line. American architect Andy Staples says he feels that fairness shouldn’t be judged on too small a scale. “I always think of a course as fair, not necessarily just a hole. Because it can balance out, and also since something that is not ‘fair’ to one may be due to not being familiar with the course. I’m a believer that a course should reveal itself over multiple plays and if a hole is unfair the first time through, rarely is it unfair the next time.” Ron Prichard emphasises a similar point: “Even a blind hole is only blind the first time you play it. Yes, luck becomes a more relevant factor in the play of such a hole. But what’s wrong with that?”

“Fair can be about balance,” says Jim Nagle of Forse Design. “For every risk/reward option presented there is an alternate route that can be negotiated, not a singular forced way to play a hole. Enlarging greens that have shrunken can be considered to be providing a fair test playing into a green. Small greens with a predominance of steeper slopes surrounded by rough grass do not provide alternate options. Expanded greens with varying playing surfaces around the greens seems to be more fair than what we often see – greens with only rough and bunkers. Enlarged greens allow players to play away from tucked hole locations or heroic carries over a hazard to a pin. Appropriately placed tees allow for a fair game of golf for all levels, so long as the golfer checks his ego at the gate and plays the right tee. Recovery from bunkers can be made to be more fair based upon depth of bunker and distance to the green or its position. Willie Park Jr wrote early on about fairway bunkers and the penalty they should exact. He was in favour of a lessor penalty allowing for a golfer to advance the ball down the hole. Fair by no means can be equated to be easier. Fair simply allows for options and not one dimensional play.

David Kahn of Jackson Kahn Design, takes a nuanced view. “Like many, my parents used to tell me as a child that life isn’t fair, and that definitely holds true in the world of golf, mainly due to the many environmental variables that can change at any given moment, creating vastly different playing conditions for golfers to encounter,” he says. “As designers, we can offset or minimise some of the potential difficulties that can arise during those various states. For example, if a site is prone to strong winds, wider, more forgiving play-spaces are preferable, thus making it a little more ‘fair’. The last thing any golfer wants is a lost ball, and while sometimes that is unavoidable, the design can definitely assist in reducing the ‘ball in pocket’ potential. A difficult recovery shot is much better than a lost ball.”

But Kahn counsels that there is more to fairness than just telling golfers to man up. “Green contours are another possible stage for unfairness, especially if the surfaces get too severe or too small,” he says. “We use science and maths to ensure our pinnable areas on every green are within a very tight range of percentages, which we’ve learned over the years based on the intended green speeds and turf selection. When speeds get to 12, 13 or faster on the Stimpmeter, a difference of one per cent of slope can be dramatic to how the ball rolls and responds. A 10 foot grid is laid out and grades are shot at every point to confirm the percentages. We do that on the sub grade, gravel layer and the final greens-mix layer, because it’s simply too risky to guess. The final product is critical to ‘fairness’ and more importantly, the enjoyment of players experiencing our courses.”

Danish architect Caspar Grauballe says that he seeks to make the course as player-neutral as possible. “I think that for me it means that the course does not favour or punish a particular type of player,” he explains. “All players should be tested equally. I once played a course where all the fairway bunkers were about the same distance from the tee. I didn’t mind as I could carry them, but the guy I was playing against was struggling as they were right in his landing area. That is unfair when it happens on most holes and gives a player with a certain playing characteristic an advantage. A feature that quickly becomes unfair is a forced carry as it requires a very specific shot which may not be possible especially for the weaker players. Fairness is about balancing the challenges of a course. I try to make the courses challenge the better players and give the weaker players options that avoid the hazards. The weaker players have enough of a challenge with their own game!”

Dallas-based architect Jeff Brauer says he feels that ignoring fairness is something that golf architects do at their peril, as courses that are perceived by players as unfair are less likely to prosper. His approach, like that of David Kahn, verges on the scientific. “I believe a target ought to be sized so the average shot (and all the physics accompanying that) can hit the green. The basic is sizing to the USGA Slope system for the average player. I add some for cross winds, downwind, and so on. I also think the greens ought to generally slope back to front, except on a few occasions where there is ample room to roll it up. In designing so much for good players, we forget just how hard this game is for the rest of us. Most hazards, again with a few exceptions, should be the type where you have a better chance of getting out rather than staying in.

“At some point, being a golf architect is turning all those conceptual ideas into something practical that works,” says Brauer. “Sooner or later, you do have to ask yourself what slope does this green need to be. Otherwise, you are just playing in the sandbox.”

But perhaps the most extreme view of all comes from the Dutch architect Frank Pont. “The only unfair situation I know is that of a teeshot that a weaker player will never be able to hit, so he or she will never be able to finish that hole,” he says. “A good example is the 150 metre wide ravine in front of the ladies’ tee on the third hole at Royal Hague in the Netherlands. The problem with that hole is that there is simply nowhere good for that tee to go, but it makes the hole impossible for a large proportion of lady golfers. For the rest all is allowed. It’s like in love. It is just a fun puzzle to be solved the best way you can.”

This article first appeared in issue 44 of Golf Course Architecture.