Match vs. medal play courses

[THuckaby2]

TEP - you definitely clarified what I was driving at re Rich, and the main point is this is certainly not unique to him... Of course given his nature in these dialogues he's as likely to agree with this as I am to shoot 59 this weekend (I don't think he'll like being pigeonholed   ) but you summed it up pretty well in saying:

"Rich may not truly appreciate this since he probably tends to play golf in any format in one basic way--likely a full bore go for broke devil take the hindmost way!"

Obviously Rich (and those who take this approach) would temper this in real competition... I will only try to modify this a little in saying that yo can see that for those who treat golf this way, it doesn't matter what negative possibilities there are on a golf hole.  I'd just also say that it's not so much that they take every risk and play "balls out" with no care - not to an extreme extent anyway - it's more that they just don't care too much how bad a single score gets, which is the fundamental difference between match play and stroke play scoring, obviously.

TH

[guest]

TEPaul, while I am more interested in whether there is such a thing as a match play course, may I digress? I was wondering just out of curiousity what you think of #17 at Sawgrass. Is that a hole that calls for an aggressive risk and reward shot or a strategically challenged dictated shot? On the face of it it looks like a great match play hole because your opponents line of play is readily apparent and you can guage your attack from there. But maybe not?? Maybe it would be defined as presenting not enough options. Either go for the flag or go for the middle of the green. Is #17 the kind of hole that stroke play golfers want because it dictates play or is it the kind of hole that they don't want because it can hurt a good score??

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Your experience might be different than mine. Quite possible.

But, for me match play in the US has not been very common. People seem to want to play their own ball and record a score.

Have I ever played match play in the States? Yes, actually last year I did so twice. Both were probably the most enjoyable rounds I played, including the one match I lost to my nephew.....he got two strokes a hole and closed me out on #16.

I would not question Rich about anything in Dornoch. One visit with American friends doesn't provide enough insight. But, I can tell you that my friends in Ballybunion have never - that's right NEVER - expressed in the slightest interest in medal play. It is almost as if they never heard of the concept. Of course, they have, but I think it is considered very unsocial. The point of playing, first and foremost, is having fun with friends. Something like score doesn't even register.

Besides, what does it matter when the "loser" gets to buy the first round?

[THuckaby2]

Your last few lines are right on the money, Tim.

Wherever one plays, the point ought to be maximum fun and enjoyment.  I've just found that match play is the norm, in my experience.  It is apparent we run in different crowds... Bottom line is, I play in the US, so I just wanted to say we can't make this a complete generalization.

Just as one ought not to re the UK and Ireland as well.  My experience over there is the same as yours - among the locals I've met, medal play is something reserved for club competitions only.

That's why I wanted to point out and commend Rich on the clarification... obviously he has quite a bit of experience playing in Scotland.. so again the bottom line is we ought not to over-generalize about how they play, also.

TH

[TEPaul]

guest:

What a fantastic example you bring up in this thread "match play vs medal play courses" with TPC's #17 (Dye's island green).

At the very least #17 TPC will show that no one on here or anywhere else should EVER try to pin down other contributors or any discussion of architecture by trying to present  arguments in complet black or white or any other kind of architectural "formulaics" to make a cogent point.

So what is #17, a match play hole or a stroke play hole?

Well, let's go through all that's been presented here on this thread so far concerning both and see just where it fits in.

Does it fit into what some people think of as a "match play" hole? In some ways it does bigtime and in some ways it doesn't bigtime. Are there multi options on this hole that are unobvious? Definitely not (except maybe the front left and back right sections of the green which are amazingly scary but nuancy too given particular match or stroke situations)! Basically it's a do or die hole, though, and as such can provide enormous drama and theater in either format.

Does it exhibit the heoic recoverability assets of some of the great match play holes? Of course not, unless one is experienced in recovering out of water over his head.

Do thoughtful match play players who understand and welcome all the ramifications and challenges of match play appreciate this hole? I would say definitely yes and no but only depending on which side of the match they're on when they arrive at the tee.

Is the hole clearly and obviously defined in the "roadmapping" sense that people like Geoffshac and me apparently don't really like in golf since we've said that's what the stroke play mentality golfer likes and wants? Most definitely! It doesn't get much more clearly defined as to what a golfer must do than this! This hole is one of the slimest margin for error holes anywhere.

But does the stroke play mentality golfer like this hole. Inherently they just hate it--they loath it--it scares the sh... out of them. Their whole tournament can go up in smoke on this one and they sure don't like that. This is a do or die hole and tour pro golfers don't like do or die holes unless it happens to be one of their fellow competitors who's dying and not them.

This is a hole that exhibits so many of the extremes on both ends of the spectrum in both match and stroke play that it couldn't be a better example to show how much all those extremes can potentially be combined into one and made to show what a great big beautiful grey area all this is anyway.

You've gotta hand it to Pete Dye on this one. The hole is famous and was from the gitgo because it can accomplish so much and it's obviously in the perfect place to do it (#17). The possibilities are wide and it's so good it can't be categorized generally because frankly it can so easily get down to which golfer even in the same group you're talking about and what he's just done there.

A lot of drama has gone on there and the hole was probably conceived in the first place because Pete Dye is notorious for loving to torture the tour pro and did he ever succeed here.

I think it's a great match and stroke play hole but secretly the tour pros probably loathe it in stroke play.

It also happens to be the hole that for me personally was the hole that made me truly wonder something and so much more as time went on.

This was the hole were in 1993 Tiger Woods arrived in the finals of the US Amateur having semi-miraclously fought his way back all through the back nine from almost certain defeat. I have no idea whether he intended to go at the scary super slim margin for error right pin on one of the most overall slim margin for error holes but he went to the right of the pin, hit next to the bulkhead and for some completely unfathomable reason did not go in the water. From next to the bulkhead he rolled in an unlikely birdie putt, won the Amateur and went on to win two more with some other do or die shots that frankly are beyond my comprehension of anything other than "odd fate".

But when I saw that shot and then the birdie in 1993 I thought to myself--is there something even stranger than fiction going on with this guy--nobody can be this good and this lucky at precisely the right time.

And then for the next 5-6 years the world saw him do things like that so many times as to be incomprehensible to me.

But it all started for me on TPC's #17 a great hole--a super grey area hole in the entire context of golf architecture.

Great question!

[guest]

TEPaul,

I like your analysis. Thanks for taking the time to write it!

[Rick Shefchik]

TEP:

I liked it, too. Well-described and considered.

But my favorite lines were:

"I would say definitely yes and no..."

and

"super gray area"

[TEPaul]

"I would say definitely yes and no..."

because that's probably exactly what the gray area in golf architecture is.

RickS:

The more I do this stuff and the more I read and reread the more I like that line. Maybe it's horrible to say but give me some specific subject about architecture and I bet most of the time I can find you quotes from most all the old guys where they said yes and no about it at some point.

I'm beginning to truly believe if any of them could see how seriously some of us take them now and how dedicately we try to pigeionhole both them and their architecture, they would likely roar with laugther, right in our faces.

The "super gray area" I'll take full credit for though.

[ForkaB]

Calling Dr. Katz!

Not only are Toms I and IV trying to psychoanalyze my golf game without either a license or a clue, Tom III (MacWood) is agreeing with me which, as you well know, is one of the clear signs that one is becoming certifiably mad!

Two Toms (I and IV)

You have only seen me goofing around on golf courses, having fun enjoying whacking the ball amongst the company and the scenery.  I rarely let friends see my competition game, which is excruciatingly stuffy and far less entertaining.

Tim and Tom (IV)

I did not mean to imply that there is lots of casual stroke play golf in Scotland these days--just that there was quite a bit more of it at the turn of the last century, contrary to Dr. MacK's hyperbole.  The game du jour in Ecosse is skins.

Tom I

Glad you agree that the 17th's at the TPC's in both Ponte Vedra and Phoenix are both great match play and great stroke play holes.  This is what I have been trying to say all along.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

FWIW, Alice Dye should be given credit for the island hole at Sawgrass. She suggested it to her husband and Deane Beaman. So I read in a Pete Dye interview somewhere.

One day at the Players they are going to have 25 mph winds, plus a rock hard green, and there is going to be some real debacles at 17, as in unplayable. The fans will love it, however.  

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- I think I can shed some light on la differance. Do you know the sport putt-putt? Not Minature golf, but putt-putt. The putt-putt holes are all flat and rather straight froward and it really looks like each porfessional can make ace on every hole. The strategic holes have the windmills, multi-level doglegs, clowns mouth and water hazards. Can't you see the difference? It so easy.

Couldn't Ross be the one who started to design "heroic" holes and rtj just magnified and built a career on those? TOTB

[TEPaul]

"Tom I
Glad you agree that the 17th's at the TPC's in both Ponte Vedra and Phoenix are both great match play and great stroke play holes.  This is what I have been trying to say all along."

Rich:

I'm glad you agree with me that they both are--and so now we both agree on a portion of this thread regarding GeoffShac's article and Simpson and Wethred's quote.

Now what you need to be able to do next is to try somehow to understand what Geoff Shackelford is saying in his article about the negative effects of a stroke play mentality and what that can do to the perception of what makes a hole or course "fair" or "unfair". Then try to understand how that perception eventually can begin to corrupt architecture and make it one dimensional, dull and uninteresting.

If you can get to that point, you should be able to see that what you must be doing is denying or failing to understand the extent to which so many golfers who possess a "stroke play mentality" do not agree with all three of us that what can make a hole so interesting in match play can also work well for them in stroke play if they could only rid themselves of their fixation on "fairness" (equity) which leads directly to their "stroke play" mentality.

If you can somehow connect those thoughts you will see that GeoffShac is making no leap of faith at all and that the quotation of Simpson and Wethred does, in fact, support exactly what Geoff is saying.

[guest]

TEPaul,

What do you think of the idea that match play can also have a negative effect on a golf hole's architecture, as in the example I gave above whereby a golfer watches his opponent hit the ball out of bounds, or something along those lines, and simply chooses a very conservative route to the hole. It sort of undoes the design intent of risk-reward, etc. if one of the options is to hit three seven irons from tee to green, take a two putt, win the hole and move on. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that scenario, but it is one way a match can proceed on a given hole. There are other ways in which match play can affect the approach of a golfer relative to the architecture, but what about that example?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Match play and medal play are just head-sets, perspectives.

The game is only about getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible, and the architecture is designed in that context.

Whether one plays match or medal, the hole doesn't change, it is static.  Only your mind is altered !

[Paul Turner]

Sometimes ultra severe holes are defended as match play holes i.e. designed with little care of stroke play.  But is, for example, a par 4 hole that's often halved in 7, a fun or good hole?  

[Dan King]

Fair has become a very popular term in golf.

I recently read somewhere that the fairest possible course design would be a complete lack of design. The cross-country game from point A to point B would not favor anyone. Mother Nature plays no favorites. (Reality: picking the points A and B could lead to unfairness.)

As soon as architecture enters the equation -- the concept of unfairness, favoring one type of play over another -- can enter.

So the wilder, the more natural the hole the fairer it is.

But American golfers have turned the whole concept of fairness on its head, replacing the definition with the complete opposite.

It doesn't take long to be around American golfers to discover their new meaning of fairness. This isn't how fair a hole is against another competitor, but fairness is relation to par. If you make a hole too difficult to reach whatever par number is assigned, then the hole becomes unfair.

If you have too many of these unfair holes on a course, then the entire course becomes unfair.

Why?

In match play would it matter? Winning a hole 8 to 9 is no different than winning the same hole 4 to 5. What difference does it make what the fictitious par number equals?

When playing for a score, what the golfer cares about is the final number. Is the golfer close enough to 72 for his usual game? Now there is a big difference between making a 4 or an 8. One might be considered a par, the other a quad. Pars good, Quads bad. A golf course that has too many potential quads is an unfair golf course. Therefore, excessive or difficult hazards have become unfair.

Everything has to have a relationship to par and  that par number must be very close to 72.

Also the other current philosophy of golf is that it is a physical not a mental game. Many now believe that thinking shouldn't be a requirement for golf. If you manage to hit the ball where the architect tells you to hit it you should be rewarded. Any requirement to think your way around the course is also unfair. Why should you be punished after a great shot just because the architect didn't make it clear enough where you were supposed to hit the ball?

It's just a hop, skip and a jump to eliminating all things that could be unfair in the play of a tournament -- weather, wear and tear on the green and conditioning that could change during the day. While often, with tongue in cheek, I talk about the pros playing virtual golf, wouldn't that be the next step in dealing with the unfairness of golf?

Haven't we moved closer to the deadly dull game Mr. Macdonald warned us about in the quote below?

Dan King

"So many people preach equity in golf. Nothing is so foreign to the truth. Does any human being receive what he conceives as equity in his life? He has got to take the bitter with the sweet, and as he forges through all the intricacies and inequalities which life presents, he proves his metal. In golf the cardinal rules are arbitrary and not founded on eternal justice. Equity has nothing to do with the game itself. If founded on eternal justice the game would be deadly dull to watch and play."
 --Charles Blair Macdonald

[TEPaul]

guest;

You certainly do ask some extraordinary questions! I hope you don't expect someone like me to give you cogent answers to all of them.

Nevertheless, in answer to your question;

"What do you think of the idea that match play can also have a negative effect on a golf hole's architecture, as in the example I gave above whereby a golfer watches his opponent hit the ball out of bounds, or something along those lines, and simply chooses a very conservative route to the hole? It sort of undoes the design intent of risk-reward, etc. if one of the options is to hit three seven irons from tee to green, take a two putt, win the hole and move on. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that scenario, but it is one way a match can proceed on a given hole. There are other ways in which match play can affect the approach of a golfer relative to the architecture, but what about that example?"

guest:

To your first question, I would say in the context you cite it, that match play has no negative effect on architecture at all. What you're talking about is no more than the match play format, it's procedure in effect.

If you asked that question of a wise architect he would probably say; "My good man, I have enough to think about in the creation of architecture and such as what you ask is of no importance whatsoever."

Regardless of the architecture, any player has the option of playing a hole any way he chooses but with intelligence always in relation to the predicament of his opponent.

Basically architecture is good or bad, or some degree in between, interesting or not interesting, and it remains the same--all that changes is the format in which golfers play it and react to it in relation to that format. But various formats should not fundamentally change anyone's perception of the architecture, as an excessive "stroke play" mentality so often tries to do.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

As regards your 10:06pm post--no truer words could be said!

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
As regards your 10:06pm post--no truer words could be said!

Oh come on, I can do better than that:

"The biggest myth, as measured by square footage, is that as you grow older, you gradually lose your interest in sex. This myth probably got started because younger people seem to want to have sex with each other at every available opportunity including traffic lights, whereas older people are more likely to reserve their sexual activities for special occasions such as the installation of a new pope.
"But does this mean that, as an aging person, you're no longer capable of feeling the lust you felt as an 18-year-old? Not at all! You're attracted just as strongly as you ever were toward 18-year-olds! The problem is that everybody your own age seems repulsive."
 --Dave Barry
 
 Dan King
 

"Let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth, to see it like it is and to tell it like it is, to find the truth, to speak the truth and live with the truth. That's what we'll do.
  --Richard Nixon (Republican nomination acceptance speech, 1968 )

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

It is, when you and your opponent have driven the first hole at NGLA.

Or when you both drive it in the first cross bunker on # 3 and the pin is in a challenging position, or when you both drive it in the cross bunker at #8 and the pin is just on the front right of the green.  Or, when you drive in any of the fairway bunkers on # 12 and # 15 and the pin is on the upper back shelf on both greens.

Sometimes, you can walk off with a 7 and feel lucky that you halved the hole, or that your opponent was lucky to halve the hole.

There is something neat about a diabolical hole where length is absent and risk/reward/dire punishment await the choice and execution of the shot.

That's why NGLA is my favorite golf course.

TEPaul,

I still don't believe you hit your approach shot into the back left bowl on # 1.  I think you airmailed the green, hit the golfers on the second tee who kicked the ball back onto the green.  No one is that good.  Did your opponent witness the shot ?

[ForkaB]

Tom

If you agree with Pat's 10:06pm post then you agree with me, as he says what I have been trying to say very elegantly.

You will never convince me that there is some sort of "vast stroke play mentality conspiracy" out there that has or ever has had the agenda or even the effect of "corrupt(ing) architecture and mak(ing) it one dimensional, dull and uninteresting."  However, you (and Geoff and the dead guys) have the right to hold those beliefs if you so wish.

"Fairness", as Dan points out, is the culprit, and when it becomes an important design principle, the ability of a course to inspire both interesting match play and stroke play suffers, in equal measure.

One final point.  If the stroke play mentality were so delterious, why do such a disproprotionately high ratio of the courses which we revere reside in Britian and Ireland, where weekly stroke play competitions are the centerpiece of both the golfing calendar and the handicapping system?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

The stroke play mentality has had a tremendous effect on modern golf architecture. Starting with the Monster at Oakland Hills, RTJ spent a decade or two designing/redesigning golf courses with an eye toward protecting par. Pinched driving areas with well elevated greens flanked by bunkers. Bellerive, Firestone, Oakland Hills, Hazeltine, etc. Wilson did the same at Scioto with the goal of attracting the US Open, ironically they instead got the US Am, which doubly ironically was conducted as a medal event. That US Open mentality, that par should be protected, as had a major effect on so many great old designs being ruined. ANGC the product of a collaboration of two match play proponents has finally succumbed.

At the other end of the spectrum, you know the match play mentality was a major influence on the development of golf architecture in its early years. The courses that Rich mentions in the UK, they are the product of a group of talented architects/theorists and they were nearly all amateurs who competed almost exclusively under match play ( Hutchinson, Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Low, Darwin, MacKenzie, Alison, Abercromby, Campbell, Hutchison, etc. ) Even the most prominent Professional architect of that era--Willie Park--was best known for his challange matches.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

This is what you said the other day;

"I think that Simpson is talking about fairness vs. unfairness, rather than match play vs. stroke play and/or "strategic" vs. "penal" golf holes, rightly understadning that it is a completely different issue than latter two.  He implies that increasing purses for professionals is making unfairness unpopular to them, but it is a very great leap of faith to extend that bit of logic to where Geoff tries to go."

And then today you said:

"You will never convince me that there is some sort of "vast stroke play mentality conspiracy" out there that has or ever has had the agenda or even the effect of "corrupt(ing) architecture and mak(ing) it one dimensional, dull and uninteresting."  However, you (and Geoff and the dead guys) have the right to hold those beliefs if you so wish.

"Fairness", as Dan points out, is the culprit, and when it becomes an important design principle, the ability of a course to inspire both interesting match play and stroke play suffers, in equal measure."

Rich:

That's absolutely true that "fairness" is the culprit. But where did the desire to increase "fairness" into golf come from? It came originally from the stroke play format of golf, and probably for fairly obvious reasons. Over time the desire for increased "fairness" eventually embued itself into golf generally--in both the stroke play format and then the match play format. If you cannot see that effect today, to a large degree, among numerous players (certainly the top caliber tour players) then frankly we have no more to talk about here.

But if you can see that which apparently you can (since you've just said, '"fairness is the culprit') then we should look again at the Simpson/Wethred quote and also GeoffShac's article.

[THuckaby2]

Two Toms (I and IV)

You have only seen me goofing around on golf courses, having fun enjoying whacking the ball amongst the company and the scenery.  I rarely let friends see my competition game, which is excruciatingly stuffy and far less entertaining.

Nor have you seen my competition game, nor has either of us seen Tom Paul's.  You'd be shocked how quiet I get. That's not the point.  And remember what I said above about you:

"Obviously the "care" taken playing a hole increases in competition..."

"Obviously Rich (and those who take this approach) would temper this in real competition..."

but most importantly,

"... Of course given his nature in these dialogues he's as likely to agree with this as I am to shoot 59 this weekend (I don't think he'll like being pigeonholed   )"

It's good to see I was correct on all three accounts!

The point here, Rich, is that from everything you've ever posted on this board and elsewhere, and the various conversations we've had playing golf and otherwise, I get the idea that the playing of the game is the main thing for you, and the venue doesn't matter nearly as much as the hitting of the shots.  You said basically that in a great post once regarding Cypress, NGLA, etc. - that you had been to the alleged nirvana and found that the hitting of the shots there was not much different than the hitting of the shots anywhere else.  Do I have this wrong?

And if that is your approach to the game, then it is wholly understandable why you find no "match play courses" and "stroke play courses", because it's all about just hitting the shots... Obviously this is taking things to an extreme, and you do like some courses more than others, but not to any extent where the course itself will effect what makes the game fun for you, which is the hitting of the shots.

There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with this... hell, I am this way myself a lot, although as you know I do enjoy feeling awed at courses I find to be great.

This isn't meant as any form of analysis of you or your personality.  It's just very interesting to me because I have had this exact same conversation with several other friends... There's one low 'capper who is a very competitive player, and for him the course is just a "track" no matter where or what it is - that is, a vehicle for his use to obtain competitive glory.  I also have another friend who does just always play in this "balls out" manner TEP described way above... and again, the course doesn't matter, he's gonna go for every shot regardless of potential outcome.

I don't see you being on either of those extremes, Rich.

But I do see the hitting of the shots mattering to you more than the venue, be it screwing around with us, playing for skins in Scotland, match play or stroke play wherever.

I know you don't like to be pigeonholed, hell I don't either.

But this would just explain your thoughts in this thread, anyway... wouldn't it?

TH

[guest]

TEPaul,

Here's another question for you:

You are in charge of setting up pin placements at Augusta for two different tournaments. One is match and the other is stroke. How would the pin placements differ for each tournament?

Thanks!