News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #50 on: January 30, 2003, 08:02:33 AM »
Rich:

Now look again at Simpson/Wethred's quote;

"The multiplication of £1,000 tournaments and innumerable championships has to a considerable extent disturbed the values. Players, not unnaturally, when so much is at stake, insist more and more on a rigid standard of equity. It would be unwise to underrate the fascinations of publicity or the importance of golf as a spectacle to entertain enthusiastic galleries; but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty) reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."

Rich:

Do you know where the stroke play format emanated from? It emanated from the early designer/greenkeeper/clubmaker/professional type golfer who needed to play single day "STROKE PLAY" tournaments so as to get back to work (the match play format took too long for them).

And so what 'values' do you think Simpson/Wethred are talking about being 'disturbed' by 'innumerable 1,000 pound tournaments' in their first sentence?

Obviously the values that embued the essence of match play golf (and by extension any golf of any format--in their opinions) that were reliant on dealing with luck and randomness and all the little inconsistencies of golf when faced with the fickleness of nature inherent in early architecture.

And what do you suppose S/W meant when they said in the second sentence, "Players, not unnaturally, when so much is at stake, insist more and more on a rigid standard of equity"?

What did they mean by a "rigid standard of equity"? They mean of course "fairness".

In this way you should begin to see that desire for "fairness" is almost all that the "stroke play" mentality is! They are almost one and the same--almost synonymous.

What do S/W mean by "mischievous tendencies"? Obviously the desire for increased "fairness" (stroke play mentality).

Which they say, "but at the same time it is necessary to point out certain mischievous tendencies that can influence the progress and spirit of the game, tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty)...."

What do they mean by, "miscarriages of justice"? Obviously they mean "unfairnesses", as they go on to say, "tendencies which, in the long run, by laying an undue insistence on apparent miscarriages of justice (for which the architect is usually held guilty)...."

Miscarriages of justices (unfairnesses)--(for which the architect is usually held guilty)!!

Can you now see how the desire for "fairness" (the stroke play contingent in W/S's quote) and their abhorence for "unfairness"  begins to creep into architecture?

As W/S go on to say, "reduce the imaginative element of our courses to a lower level than they should rightly possess, and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels."

Reduce the 'imaginative element of our courses'--'and have the effect of diverting the poetry of golf into less desirable channels'.

That is without question the beginning of the demise of more strategic oriented golf and architecture as it becomes dulled down by the desire for "fairness" (stroke play mentality). And then the 'effect of diverting the poetry of golf' (dealing with unfairness) into less desirable channels.

And so you should see that the desire to define and enhance "fairness" in golf began to filter into all of golf to a large extent and to even effect architecture which it's clear to me is what W/S are referring to.

And if you reread GeoffShac's arcticle you will see he's referring to the same thing.

So when you said;

"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.  

You should now see that they are not completely different issues and that they are closely related and very much effecting one another both then and more so now.

And you should now see that there is no "leap of faith" on Shackelford's part in connecting these issues to make his conclusion and recommendations.

The only leap here is your own. You grasped the first point but when you lept out to attempt to grasp the next point, and connect the two points, apparently you sailed out into some vacuum of near total confusion.

But if you're still out there in that vacuum of near total confusion all is probably not lost since even looking at architecture as no more than a hole is a hole is a hole, although very far from ideal and energizing, is probably not all that bad as even understanding a teeeny bit about golf and its architecture can be pretty good too.

And so here ends my attempt to convince you of anything more....there really is no further point to attempt to do that.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

guest

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #51 on: January 30, 2003, 08:18:55 AM »
What if this is not so much an issue of stroke or match play mentality but another issue of what I will call "rocketball" mentality? "Rocketball" is the kind of game that we are playing when we insist on golf balls that go longer and straighter. Golf architecture, once set up for the game of golf is now set up for "rocketball". You can play "rocketball" in either the match or stroke play format. Maybe we need to stop turning our 200 yard wayward drives into 220 yard straight drives and go back to a time when ball flight actually matched our swing path, you know, a fair representation of our swing. Then wider fairways would play accordingly. Who needs a 70 yard wide fairway when the players are playing "rocketball" instead of golf? Just a thought.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #52 on: January 30, 2003, 12:57:56 PM »
Three Toms

Tom I

I still miss your point. It would help if you could give me an example of a stroke play course and tell me why it is not good for match play, or vice versa.

Tom III

Good to see you back on the dark side--it must have been agony for you when you realised you had agreed with me!  Your post does, perhaps unwittingly, allow me and Tom I to bridge our GAP in understanding.  Tom I--if you go back and use the "Find and Replace" feature on your PC and  change all references to "stroke play mentality" to "protecting par" I think your arguments have a teeny bit more substance.  Tom III, sorry for the diversion.....  I've never been to the places you mention, but do you really think that the changes to "protect par" on the courses you list had any sort of deleterious effect on their quality as match play venues?  I thought not.

Tom IV

My participation on this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my game or my attitude towards it.  I post on this topic because I think it is a huge red herring that diverts us from much more interesting topics that could advance our understanding of GCA.

Now where's Tom(my) II been hiding during all of this..........
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

THuckaby2

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #53 on: January 30, 2003, 01:10:56 PM »
Quote
Tom IV

My participation on this thread has nothing whatsoever to do with my game or my attitude towards it.  I post on this topic because I think it is a huge red herring that diverts us from much more interesting topics that could advance our understanding of GCA.

Really?  You participate in the hopes of getting us to understand how worthless it is, so we'll drop it and better topics can be discussed?  That is a very interesting take.  Seems to me a more effective strategy would be to just not read the thread!    I am curious as to whether I was correct in my assessment, but I doubt if I was you'd ever tell me anyway.  ;)  

So oK, I guess I'll leave you alone now.  I swear I meant no disrepect by any of this.  I try to advance my understanding by figuring out how smart people feel and think about things, that's all.

In way of explanation, to me, just about anything having to do with the great game of golf is interesting, and advancing my understanding of life and golf and how they are intertwined - as this sort of does, at least to me - is far more interesting than anything that could "advance my understanding of gca."  Golf course architecture as a stand-alone subject just doesn't interest me that much.

But that's just me...

Just curious though:  if I can back-track on my promise to leave you alone, and if you don't mind saying, what topics do you have in mind?

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #54 on: January 30, 2003, 04:06:56 PM »
Rich
I partially agree with you - a good match course is an equally good medal course, the opposite is where we differ. A course designed for medal - a US Open venue - does not make for exciting match play golf. Why is the Masters always the most exciting tournament - it allows for choice/gambling - big win or big loss. The US Open is more of a survival competion, which can also be good theatre, but not necessarily exciting/thought provoking golf, that kind of course provides the best setting for match play. I know I'd personally tire of steady diet of US Open golf.

One of the problems with the US Open style set up/golf course - Oakland Hills for example - is that it eliminates the gambler. As an example a Seve Ballesteros or a Sam Sneed played a very exciting brand of golf, a brand well suited to courses like St. Andrews and Augusta. Golf courses that provide risk/reward choices, that require imagination, shot making and an excellent short game. The medal style of golf course is confining, does not provide for much choice or imagination - instead simple mechanical skill (Andy North, Scott Simpson, Hale Irwin, etc). You can play a match on this type golf course, but it ain't going to be much fun and not nearly as interesting. This type of architecture does have a deleterious effect on match play - whatever deleterious means (I know its not good).

I'd rather watch a match at Wentworth than a match at LaCosta.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #55 on: January 30, 2003, 07:08:26 PM »
Rich:

You sure are still missing my point. If you want a good example of the type of course the "stroke Play" mentality crowd likes just visualize any golf course where the basic best play is to hit the ball down the middle most all day. It's completely understandable to the "stroke play" mentality golfer, it's considered fair by him (definitely not unfair), just execute without having to think or choose etc.

Courses and architecture like that generally have flanking hazards, treelining or some interchangeable feature to accomplish the same kind of "shot dictation" thing. Basically the same examples Shackelford mentioned in his article.

Maybe you think I've been saying this is good stroke play architecture. It's not--it's not good architecture at all for stroke play, match play, any play.

You'll probably just say again that's what you've been saying all along but the point is the "stroke play" mentality crowd are the ones that like it because they view it as fair and that's what they advocate in architecture but you don't seem to be making that connection. And so much architecture has become like this because of that prevalent "stroke play" mentality. This is what we're talking about, what Simpson & Wethred were talking about and what MacKenzie was talking about in the quotes used.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #56 on: January 30, 2003, 11:15:55 PM »
Tom IV

This thread is getting nowhere because nobody but me cares to ask or answer the questions as to whether the title of the topic is anything but rhetoric.  As we've gone through this exercise many times before, with the same non-result, I think we could go over to more producetive thread, like the Cigar one, without fear of loss.  PS, e-mail me privately if you want answers to the personal questions you raised.  They really are irrelevant to this discussion.

Tom III

In regard to your opinions on great "match play courses" I will just say that I find watching the annual event at Wentworth to be slightly more soporiphic than 5-day test cricket, and IMHO the greatest match play contest I have ever seen, by far, was Tom Lehman vs. Seve Ballesteros at that notorious "stroke play" venue, Oak Hill in 1995.  You may have missed it, but on another thread a European Tour player implictly put Wentworth in the SMUTT ("Smash and Putt") school of golf course design.

Tom I

I have lived a sheltered life and have fortunately never been exposed to the horrors of the infamous "stroke play mentality crowd."   What do these people look like?  Where do they practice their vile beliefs and black arts?  Are they contagious?  Is there any way I can identify such people so I may avoid them and continue to go through life in blissful ignorance?  Can you give me a list of the courses they have infected so that if I ever happen to play on them I will be certain to NOT attempt to play match play over them?  From what you and the other Tom's say, I cannot even imagine how horrific an experience that would be.

Thanking you in advance.

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #57 on: January 31, 2003, 07:35:01 AM »
Rich:

I'm very sorry to read that you find my questions irrelevant to this discussion.  I guess I take this "discussion" to be about bigger things than strategy, penalty or lack thereof on golf holes.  I'm sorry you find this to be nothing but rhetoric - I do not, obviously!

No need for private emails here, but thanks for the offer.

TH

ps - please do not lump me in with "the other Toms", on this thread anyway.  I honestly don't care much what a stroke play course or match play course is, nor have I weighed in on such.  What I do care about is how people look at the game, which I believe has a great effect on a discussion like this, or really any discussion about this great game.  Obviously you disagree.  This sure isn't the first time we've disagreed on golf subjects, nor will it be the last!  I'd type the French phrase that describes how I feel here, but Dan Kelly would give me crap for spelling it wrong and I don't speak a word of French.  So in the end, long live the difference.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #58 on: January 31, 2003, 07:48:24 AM »
Rich
I do recall that match and it was exciting. I'm not sure Seve was ever in the fairway and he hit a remarkable number of recovery shots in that match. It was a truely remarkable survival affair on his part. But other than the flop/explosion shot out of the hay, we never got to see Seve's full repetoir. I prefer his work at St.Andrews, Augusta, Lytham, etc. The US Open-like set up prevented much more than hacking it out of the rough (he was a genius that day) and there isn't much room for run up shots and other creative shots of that nature - center of the fairway or hack. Although Wentworth may not be everyone's favorite design, it certainly provides a venue for great shotmaking, creativity, bold play and there have been a number of great matches conducted on the course over the years.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #59 on: January 31, 2003, 08:00:07 AM »
Tom H

Sorry for lumping you in with the lumpenpatrician Toms.  Just trying to have a bit of fun, and I apologise if it offended you or Tom MacW or Tom P.

As for the thread, I never called what was said, by you or anybody (except maybe some dead guy) "rhetoric."  I said that the the specific question implied in the title was nothing but rhetoric.  I still beleive that to be true since nobody has come up with one credible (to me) example which shows that there is such as thing as a match play or stoke play course.

I'm actually interested in somebody proving me wrong on my answer to that very specific question, or at least less right.  It might lead us in to some ineresting areas of GCA.  I wan't to learn something (hopefully), which is why I'm trying to stick to the topic, rather than get bogged down in separate issues such as "fairness" and how individuals view a round of golf--specifically or generically.

That could be a good topic.  Why don't you start it, tells us your position on the issue, and I'll chime in and tell you where you are very wrong in your theory on what golf and golf courses mean to me.

Cheers

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2003, 08:09:01 AM »
Rich:

My apologies, this has obviously gotten far too personal.  Please believe me, I had some reticence posting what I did about my take on how you treat the game, but I now realize that it was inappropriate no matter how many disclaimers I inserted.  It did just seem to me to be a very easy explanation of why you feel like you do on this issue, but I should have known nothing about you is that simple.

No, no need for me to start a thread and have you ridicule me.  Perhaps someday over a beer or a single malt we can have this discussion, I'd like that, though I fear the ridicule there might be worse!  I am also curious as to where my assessment went wrong, but not enough to start a thread on it.  But the point is I have no right to try and assess you in the first place, and I should have known that.

Thus my humble apologies.  Good luck with the other Toms.

TH
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2003, 08:15:48 AM »
Rich:

Turning to slight sarcasm to make your point--whatever it is here, or in continuing to ask questions is probably not the most benefical thing to do but frankly it's OK with me--you know I really don't mind at all--good dynamics I would call it.

I'd have to say that I've done my best to try to "convince" you of what's been said here, by Shackelford, Simpson & Wethred, MacKenzie etc.

If you choose to ignore what it so obvious (to us) then that's OK Rich--(Golf is a great big game and there is room in it for everyone).

I must say, however, that you have an odd way of sort of trying to either downplay or discount many of the ideas, principles, thoughts, analyses of problems and possible solutions that are pretty well chronicled and also quite clear to many people from the writings of some awful significant architects throughout the evolution of golf.

I really don't know why you do that but to one degree or another it seems you always have.

But specific to this thread and this subject, particularly as it relates to the issue of "fairness" or "unfairness" in golf and architctecture you have stated in your first post on this thread that you believe Simpson and Wethred are talking about "fairness" and "unfairness" in golf and that it has no connection to golfer's ideas about stroke play vs match play or strategic architecture vs penal architecture or any relationship or connection to a "stroke play" mentality (which you also apparently don't seem to understand).

So I guess at this point, Rich, I should ask you what you think they mean by those terms ("fairness and "unfairness) and what you think they connect to? You might also try to reiterate what you think those quotations mean in their totality.

They are not just words in a vacuum or ideas in a vacuum as so far you appear to be portray them. So tell me what you think they mean and why you would also say that someone like Mackenzie is contradicting himself. What is it that you seem to know (in this context and regarding this specific issue) that Alister MacKenzie apparently didn't?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2003, 12:06:47 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

THuckaby2

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2003, 12:23:30 PM »
Rich:

Thanks for the explanation.  I dare say our approaches to the game are very similar, but that in the whole that each of us try to experience, perhaps certain parts are more important to each of us... but I dare not say that, dare I?  ;)

I guess I ought to go eat a peach.

TH

ps - I never intended to say that you did not appreciate the venue on which the game is played AT ALL, just that I thought you appreciated the playing of the game MORE than the venue.  In a very odd way I mean this as a compliment.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2003, 04:03:28 PM »
"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."

Rich:

I can't believe I'm still doing this but anyway. S&W weren't having a discussion or making a statement about match play or stroke play golf courses! What they were talking about is an attitude, most likely born out of stroke play golf that they were strongly implying could have a deleterious effect on all golf, all formats, and possibly golf architecture eventually.

That attitude they were talking about is what they called "a rigid standard of equity" (in the minds of some players).  Mackenzie may have referred to it as "a card and pencil" mentality. Generally today we call it "a stroke play mentality". But essentially it's all the same thing and results in what most refer to as an over-concern with "fairness" (or "unfairness).

If you read S&W's quote carefully you cannot help but see and understand what they were talking about--it's as clear as the noonday sun. And when you get to the end of their quote you can also see the point they were trying to make. But they are not talking about any comparison between match play courses vs stroke play courses as it relates to architecture.

What they were talking about is that if that "attitude" became prevalent in golf it would begin to affect architecture, it would begin to 'disturb the values' (of golf). It would begin to 'divert the poetry of golf'.

That was their warning. That was Mackenzie's warning.

But again they were not comparing match play golf courses to stroke play golf courses (because they didn't think there was SUPPOSED to be such a thing and neither do we) and they were not implying that there should be architecture specifically for one and then the other. They were warning that this "attitude" (concern with fairness) could "disturb the values" of all golf!

Again, that was their warning!

Geoff Shackelford (and also Dan King) used those quotes to make the point that apparently no one ever really heeded their warning but that they should have because  that "attitude" did take hold and influenced architecture and DID EVENTUALLY help create a form of architecture that was so reliant on fairness that courses became center directed, creating thoughtless "shot dictation" type designs, a heavy reliance on flanking hazards (of any kind) and such. Cornish & Whitten referred to that modern style as "freeway" golf architecture (just hit it down the defined center line, no need to think or choose, just execute).

That's what Shackelford was writing about in his article, concluding that architects should get away from that defined type of architecture, that "fairness" oriented type of design which really isn't that much fun or thought provoking in either match or stroke play and return to creating more architecture that is more reliant on choice, probably on width, on luck, and less concern with "fairness" on the loss of a shot, less concern about overall medal play score etc (handicapping).

And while they're at it Geoff also recommended it would be a good thing if the tour players would play a bit more match play (maybe even the PGA Championship as it once was match play) since they're about the biggest advocates of that stroke play mentality (fairness), that "attitude" that S&W were refering to years ago with the players in those 1,000 pound tournaments where a reliance on 'a rigid standard of equity' (fairness) was becoming prevalent. Hopefully if today's tour pros played more match play they'd become more comfortable with the fact that a well executed shot that goes randomly awry is only the loss of approximatly 1/18 of their day instead of their whole day.

But again, none of us ever said there was a good type of match play hole or course as distinct from a good stroke play hole or course. A good hole or course is logically probably just as interesting for stroke play as match play although it's clear your game plan, your options and choices may be quite different depending on which format you're playing.

On this we all seem to agree. But take that multi-optional, luck oriented, sometimes quirky type of hole or course where strange although often exciting things may sometimes happen even with the best executed shots and tell a golfer with an "attitude" of over-concern about "fairness" (the stroke play mentality crowd) that it's a good hole or course and I will guarantee you you'll get a serious disagreement.

And unfortunately from S&W's time forward those people's "attitude" about golf and architecture has had a real influence on architecture. And you probably think so too unless you've never seen a hole or course that you thought was boring and you didn't like. Or else to you it really is true that a hole is a hole is a hole.

That was the point of Shackelford article and the point we were trying to make here.

But ultimately it occurs to me that the thing that may really be throwing you off on this entire thread may just be the title of Dan King's thread here. It obviously made sense to him in the context of his inital post including the quotes and Geoff's article. And it makes sense to me.

But to have it make sense you have to follow the connection Dan and Geoff made and since you didn't understand the  connection or think there was one obviously this entire thread and discussion didn't make much sense to you.

I sincerely hope it does now.

Mackenzie's remark about the real purpose of a hazard that you seem to disagree with is way too complex for me to try to get into with you now particularly after your take on this thread. A good deal of Mackenzie's remark and obviously his belief about that has a great deal to do with the thinking of Max Behr and I can't handle trying to explain him to you again now since you seem to think he too is some kind of lightweight thinker.

But rest assured if I ever run across a golf course that's ideal for match play that one cannot possibly play stroke play on or vice versa you'll definitely be one of the first to know about it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

von Hayek

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2003, 05:00:23 PM »
Someone early on asked for examples, and I have been surprised there haven't been many presented on this thread. NGLA was brought up, appropriately, but I think it's more illustrative to bring up both NGLA and Shinnecock, because they are wonderfully complementary.

In Shinnecock, you have what I believe to be the premiere medal play course in the country, and with National, the premiere match play course. How incredible that they are separated by only a few trees!

Play both these courses, and the difference between the two schools is readily apparent. Shinnecock offers golfers really only one correct way to play each hole, and the strategy is usually self-evident from the tee, where one generally can see the whole hole. It's an exacting course, to say the least, but golfers need not waste much thought on strategy or course management (unless they find trouble). A classic U.S. Open venue.

NGLA, on the other hand, offers golfers a variety of strategies on each hole, usually presenting a trade-off between risk and return. This is interesting at all times, but all the more so when competing in match play, where you must "mark" your opponent. The golfer must constantly be weighing options.

One important aspect of strategic holes is that they have a much higher score variance, which, I think, makes them more entertaining. The 7th at National is a perfect example. One day you might hit the green in two with a five-iron, two putt for birdie, and think, hey, that's not so hard. The next day, you try the same thing, find the asshole bunker, and make triple. That hole may have the highest variance of any hole I know.

It might make for an interesting thread, come to think of it: what holes/course have the greatest score variance?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2003, 06:34:18 PM »
von hayek:

What a good and instructive post that was. Excellent general distinctions made between those two courses. Would you think not just different designers obviously but it's certainly interesting to see how design and maybe the use of it had changed in approximately 20+ years in an extremely rapidly developing era in American golf and its architecture (1909-1930)? But clearly both the highest of high quality courses right out of the box and so different in so many ways.

No way on earth would NGLA's #7 have the highest scoring variance. There are at least two par 3s at Pine Valley that have it beat and one in its sleep (I'm not including #5 in this BTW).
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #67 on: February 01, 2003, 10:44:16 PM »
von hayek

Thanks for stepping up to the plate to answer my question.  The NGLA-Shiinecock comparison is an interesting one, but IMO not one that proves either the proposition in the title to this thread, nor Tom Paul's various perigrinations about "fairness" and "stroke play mentality."  National is clearly a much more forgiving course (at least off the tee) but to me it is just as good a stroke play venue as SH (IF you recognise that it is several shots "easier" for the elite player).  Once you get over the hurdle of a "par mentality" I think you can see that NGLA would be a fine stroke play course--I suspect that the best player over the 4-days would be as much or more likely to win an Open there as they would at Shinnecock.   Getting to Shinnecock, isn't it as you describe it (and as I too found it) a course which epitomizes the design principals that Tom, Geoff and the dead guys are all bemoaning?  "Rigid standard of equity" and "shot dictation" designs seems to fit when you are tlaking about Shinny, don't they?

And yet, when you really think about it, I think an argument could easily be made that SH--that paradigm of the "non-poetic" desig--is in fact MORE unfair than its next door neighbor.  At NGLA you can get away with a lot of loose shots.  At Shinny, as I said to my host when I play there, requires perfect shot after perfect shot after perfect shot.  This help makes it the great golf course that it is, but to those of us mortals who are imperfect, is it really fair?

Food for thought.......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #68 on: February 03, 2003, 04:10:35 AM »
"Thanks for stepping up to the plate to answer my question.  The NGLA-Shiinecock comparison is an interesting one, but IMO not one that proves either the proposition in the title to this thread, nor Tom Paul's various perigrinations about "fairness" and "stroke play mentality.""

Rich:

I't clear to me that you're fixated on the title of this thread. In an early post I tried to say to you that you shouldn't be, when I said;

"But ultimately it occurs to me that the thing that may really be throwing you off on this entire thread may just be the title of Dan King's thread here. It obviously made sense to him in the context of his inital post including the quotes and Geoff's article. And it makes sense to me.

But to have it make sense you have to follow the connection Dan and Geoff made and since you didn't understand the  connection or think there was one obviously this entire thread and discussion didn't make much sense to you."

You're still looking for someone to show you examples of match play courses vs medal play courses. NGLA compared to Shinnecock is definitely not a good one. Again, try not to fixate on the title of this thread and try to understand better (despite the title) what Shackelford is saying in his arcticle.

What Shackelford has tried to show is a comparison of courses that offer any player more options and choices as well as a higher degree of "luck" in their architecture as opposed to courses that offer players an extremely and clearly defined one dimensional way to play any hole and are low on the degrees of "luck". Courses like that result from the influence of the "stoke play" mentality, is his point.

What does that mean? Well, a hole or a course that's one dimensional in how any player plays it compared to one that isn't is self evident. So what does a higher or lower degree of "luck" mean? For a good example of that you should refer to the interview with David MacLay Kidd on the new course he's to build at St. Andrews. That's an excellent example.

Again, none of us are saying that architects way back set out to build courses strictly for match play or stroke play. What we are saying (and S&W and MacKenzie are too) is that a concern for an overall number (single round scores--ie the stroke play mentality) was having and has had an effect on the use of multi-optionalism in architecture and also an effect on the use of or the place of "luck" in architecture.

The so-called "stroke play mentality" asks for and almost demands that the way to play any hole be very clearly defined. Good players do much better in that atmosphere--they like that presentation. It does not really mean that bad things cannot happen--only that they can clearly see those lines or architectural definitions that divide the good from the bad. And also in certain situations like bunkering, for instance, they demand that they always be allowed a shot at complete recovery (again see Kidd's bunker example).

We think it's clear to see the differences and the degrees of it that many courses offer these things and many don't.

But we've still not said that there are courses where match play or stroke play can be played and courses where either can't be. It's all really the degree of interest to which either can be played. The one dimensional designs that have attempted to remove luck as much as possible by making  almost everything "formulaic" is not very good for either. That's our point and that was S&W and MacKenzie's point. They thought it disturbed 'golf's values' and effected the 'poetry of the game'. We do too.

If you cannot imagine architecture that's extremely one dimensional in choice and also extremely formulaic in how it deals with things like "luck", basically attempting to remove it (the mindset of a "stroke play" mentality), and on the other hand courses that are really not that way, then you just can't.

  

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #69 on: February 03, 2003, 06:21:40 AM »
Thakns Tom

I apologise for "fixating" on the subject of this thread.  I have only done so because it is of interest to me and I was hoping that someone could shed some light on the concept.  I'm willing to accept a hollow victory in my lonely quest, as nobody seesm to agree with the premise implicitly posed by Dan.

As to the subejct of your posts, I agree that golf courses span many various continua of parameters, including the "one-dimensitonal/multi-dimensional design" theme that you seem to be fixated on.  My problem with that theme is that Shinnecock, which is one of the finest courses I have ever played seems to fall within that first denigrated category, while NGLA, which I like very much but do not donsider to be in the very top rank of courses, is perhaps one of the paradigms for "multi-optional design."  Do you, Geoff and the dead guys really want to tar Shinny and its style with the same brush as you do, say the new Torrey Pines, as you seem to be wanting to do?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #70 on: February 03, 2003, 06:32:56 AM »
Rich
You said that Lehman-Ballesteros's match at the notorious stroke play Oak Hill was the greatest match you had ever seen. What were some of the more memorable moments/holes from that match?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #71 on: February 03, 2003, 06:41:21 AM »
Tom MacW

From another post I thought you had seen Lehman-Ballesteros and in fact agreed with me.  If you did not see the match, thank you for your blind faith in my taste, but I would suggest that you buy or borrow from your local golf library a copy of the video of the 1995 Ryder Cup.  Or at least get Tommy Nacccarato to post some pricures of it.  Mere words cannot describe the beauty of the contest.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #72 on: February 03, 2003, 07:04:43 AM »
Rich
I did see the match. I'm interested in exploring your thoughts on the golf courses architecture - which holes from that match stood out to you?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

guest

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #73 on: February 03, 2003, 07:10:26 AM »
If you read the S&W quote, the emphasis to me is on the players' reactions to bad things happening on the golf course with all the money at stake. I am with Rich on this one. I don't see where, at least as it pertains to that quote, there is anything specific to match play versus medal play in that quote. So that quote at least, as it stands by itself, is a bit misleading. That standard of equity could easily have been demanded in match play games.

As for MacKenzie's card and pencil quote, I still think he was talking as much about the fun of match versus medal as he was talking about golf architecture. The card and pencil part of that is only a part of what he was writing about in that passage.

As for fairness, I put the quote above in about "rocketball" to see if it would initiate thoughts about how all golfers seem to be interested in newer, straighter, longer technology--all golfers, match and medal alike. So which "mentality" is more willing to live with a ball that does not fly as far or as straight? If the match play golfer is so gracious when it comes to living with unfairness, then I assume he/she is still using 1987 golf balls and persimmon woods, no? There are three aspects to the game of golf--the golfer, the equipment and the course/golfing environment. All should be examined in light of whatever mentality one wants to discuss, in my opinion.

The other problem with the concept of match play versus medal play is that it tries to put medal play in a bad light. I think that is really too bad. Why not just celebrate the incredible wide range of games being played by golfers? When Tom MacWood talks about the US Open set up for courses, it would seem to me that we could easily accept that set up for what it is. Afterall, my local munis don't set up like that for us average golfers. Why not just enjoy those events for what they are? Golf is not like basketball where each field of play is set up the same. But that is to golf's extreme benefit.

When Rich says red herring, I think he is right.

Tom P, By the way, I am still hoping you will answer my question about the Augusta set for match versus medal. What sort of pin positions would the match player want versus the medal player? If you have tired of this thread, I will understand, as you have been very good at replying to date. Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Match vs. medal play courses
« Reply #74 on: February 03, 2003, 07:34:45 AM »
Guest
I do not believe the concept of courses designed with match or medal play in mind puts medal play in a bad light. Golf courses that are set up or designed to simply protect par are what is being put in a bad light. Its easy to set up or design a golf course that protects par, it is more difficult to design a golf course that provides interesting options, tempts and is also challenging. It is my view that a well designed golf course should provide an interesting test be it match play or medal.

I have no problem with the US Open being a medal event whose set up tests/requires simple mechanical skill over mental skill/imagination. But we are talking about architecture and I don't know anyone who would want a steady diet of that kind of golf -  and isn't that the ultimate test of a well designed golf course?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »