This is one of my favorite topics. First, I must insist that everyone listen to this week's Designing Golf Podcast if you haven't. Garrett interviews George Waters about course footprints. It was exceptional! So, fairness. Yea, generally speaking, the "fairness debate" conflates luck and skill, as though they are opposites of each other. This is not the case. They are two different dimensions to game design. You can have low-luck, high-skiil games, like chess, or high-luck, high-skill games like poker, (even high-luck, low-skill games like bingo). When we're talking about "fair golf" we're usually operating from a framework where the game is about skill. When we talk about "unfair golf" we're usually talking about the parts of the game out of the player's control and randomness can creep in. However, different people come to games for different reasons and at different skill levels. Some people want to hone their skills, others just want to have fun. So, the amount of skill the course asks, and the amount of luck the course creates, can be tailored to different audiences to create a different experience. Chess is fun, poker is fun, and we can expect to have different course design profiles that are modeled after similar luck-skill profiles. Bethpage Black is a low-luck, high-skill course. The Old Course tends to be high-luck, high-skill course when the wind is up. Mammoth Dunes is a low-luck, low-skill course (at least from what I gather from Andy's review, ha!) . They're just different flavors, and we all have our favorites. Anyway, yea, I obviously really love game design theory. If your interested I'll add some lectures I've enjoyed on the topic: Richard Garfield (Magic: The Gathering creator): "Luck in Games" talk at IT University of Copenhagen: https://youtu.be/av5Hf7uOu-o Ben Brode (Marvel Snap creator) at the Game Developers Conference: https://youtu.be/HjhsY2Zuo-c

Living in Vermont where the default is mountain golf, I am used to crazy elevation change and lots of rocky outcroppings that can kick balls almost anywhere. Given that, I basically don't believe there is such a thing as an unfair golf course, just unfair green speeds. On recent trip I did play a Raynor course that had 30mph winds on top of fast greens where multiple balls hit into redan slope still ran the entire way down the green to bunker. This is only case I can think of 'unfairness' and really it was just greens too fast for abnormal wind.

I could see giving or taking away eggs based on presentation based on what they have to work with budget wise maybe I am also slightly saddened I'll never see the original apparently really severe greens. Alas modern green speeds win again - I hope Yale is not being softened!

I'd agree there. There was a debate initially to see if value should factor into the egg rating and we opted against it. Now, if price was a factor, some very expensive and terrible golf courses would be a real beneficiary. Could be fun...

As I've never played Pasa can't comment on greens, but just jumping in to say that if we're using greens fees to judge egg status then most three egg courses would be omitted due to initiation costs.

So just a few things in response. 1) it is expensive, however it could very easily be private and then we couldn’t play it at all. 2) you may think the greens are tricked up, many, including myself, may appreciate those MacKenzie greens that Urbina has actually softened. 3) the course was MacKenzies best, maybe he said it about others too, but he said it about Pasa. Without Pasa there is no Augusta National and maybe there is no Masters. We have to appreciate and celebrate Marion Hollins impact on golf in America. 4) yes there are houses, but they are interesting houses far from a modern suburb of devoid boxes. 5) there might be more influential courses in American golf, but it’s marginal. It’s a true treasure and the fact we can play it should be celebrated.

Peter, I had the chance to play Pasa recently following the renovation. It’s a beautiful and compelling golf course in many ways, with a lot to admire. The bunkering is as masterful and visually striking as you'd expect, and the par 3s are some of the best I’ve ever played. That said, I don’t think it quite earns three eggs and here’s why: -- The setting: The presence of nearby homes is distracting and takes away from the natural beauty of the property. -- The greens: While most were well executed by Jim, a few cross the line into feeling overdone and gimmicky. -- The price: It’s hard to ignore how exorbitant the green fee is, even for a course of this caliber. Just my two cents.

Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, but Aberg seems to get way too much credit given his numbers this year based on one stellar performance at the Masters in 2024. You bring him in and you would need to bring in Keegan, Spieth, and others IMO. The talent is obvious, but the stats don't seem to support the outsized reputation.

"PJ and I will also be joined by Golf Twitter's long-lost son and FEGC member Will Bardwell." Sold.

If PJ is taking "Best Player Without a Major" away from No Hat Pat, which seems reasonable, then who owns it now. For me I think it has to be Fleetwood. He's playing lights out and maybe he's stepping into Monty's shoes as a guy who can win, just not in the US, and who can compete in majors, just not win them.