Tom P
I'll try to answer your questions.
I think S&W are talking about how some pros of their day are pressuring people in the game (architects primarily, but I assume there are others--greenkeepers, championship commitees, etc. for example) to make the game less subject to chance. To me this would mean fewer blind shots, more consistent maintenance practices, less draconian hazards, etc. S&W don't like this attitude. Nevertheless, I don't see them jumping from this admirable position to any sort of discussion of or statement about "match play or "stroke play" golf courses. You and Geoff and others may think that the connection is obvious, but I do not. I don't even see any evidence in the quote that the impetus behind the attitudes of those unnamed pros is stroke play golf. S&W talk about championships. My understanding of their era is that these "championships" were both stroke and match play. Surely, the "second" major in Britain in their time was the "News of the World" match play championship. Finally, I personally think that both "fair" and "unfair" courses or golf holes will be as fair or unfair for either form of the game. Sure, in match play a really bad score on a hole is generally less fatal than if it were incurred in stroke play, but I am not sure that the leading pros were worrying too much about snowmen, even in those days (yes, I know they had them--particularly at TOC when the railway lines were still an integral part of the course). More likely they were concerned about what awaited them when they climbed the hill of the Alps at Prestwick, or whether or not a properly judged and struck putt would travel fairly straightly towards the hole, regardless of what form of golf they were playing. I don't know about this, of course, but neither do you or Geoff, I think. We are all sepculating as to what was in the minds of those old pros.
Mackenzie talks about the "card and pencil spirit" adn amkes the statemnt:
"The majority of (golfers) simply look upon a hazard as a means of punishing a bad shot, whereas their real object is to make the game more interesting." With all due repect to the Dr., the reason that hazards make the game more interesting is precisely because they have the potential of punishing a bad shot. What would be interesting about a hazard that was non-hazardous? Or maybe this is where the practiceof "eye-candy" was born...........
As you know, I play a lot (40-50 rounds a year) of sanctioned competitive golf--both stroke play and match play--not at your level of skill, but with at least as much enthusiasm. I really have racked my brain trying to see how the form of golf that is played has any sort of relationship to the architecture of the course. As others have said, there is a tremendous difference between the two forms of golf, but that relates to their form--the fact that in match play you are playing, in real time against a real and defined opponent, whereas in stroke play you are playing in a more amorphous competitive arena, primarily against yourself. All kinds of golf courses can acomodate both forms of golf, equally well, IMHO. This is one of the beauties of golf.
Finally, I have not really tried to be sarcastic in my posts. I honestly do wish that you or anybody else would give me a concrete example of this hypothesized match play/stroke play course differentiation. To me, an interesting golf hole or golf course is interesting and effective regardless of the form of golf over which it is played.
Tom H
I don't mean or ever plan to ridicule. Suffice it to say that my approach to golf is holistic. I try to experience and appreciate all of its elements, very much including "venues." If I ever lead you to believe otherwise, I apologise.