Match vs. medal play courses

[guest]

Tom M, with my golf game, most course provide plenty of variety and challenge! No one wants a steady diet of anything, it is true. I think average golfers often play the same course over and over because they cannot make it play like a steady diet, they/we are not good enough.

What do you think of Pebble Beach? Is that a steady diet of anything in particular? Isn't it great that they can set that course up for the US Open AND play it with the amatuers in a different tournament? Again, golf is amazing that way.

I do think that there is a negative tone here regarding stroke play in this thread. The S&W quote is being used as a mouthpiece against stroke play (I don't see it in the quote myself, but whatever) and the quote uses the phrase "diverting the poety of golf". That is not a nod in favor of stroke play (if you accept that the quote is about stroke play which I do not at this point).

TEPaul, As a matter of fact, I am beginning to believe the S&W quote is really about MATCH PLAY! They were talking about the overriding match play mentality at the time in which superior golfers were getting tired of losing to lucky golfers and stealing all the money! (I am just being provocative...but on the other hand, I could be right.   )

[TEPaul]

"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."

guest:

Obviously I haven't been too good at explaining what I mean and what I believe Geoff Shackelford means.

I've asked Rich a number of times to just forget about the TITLE OF THIS THREAD. It probably is somewhat misleading as to the S&W quote and MacKenzie's because they really aren't talking about the differences in match and medal play courses or the need for a different type of architecture for either.

I really do hope we can all be clear on that at this point. What they're talking about is a deleterious effect of the stroke play mentality (card and pencil) on all golf, all architecture and they believe that as clearly they are both warning about something! What they're warning about is that very stroke play mentality--card and pencil mentality--overconcern with equity--overconcern with fairness is not good for golf--any golf!

Clearly also they do NOT believe that mentality is necessary for any type of golf--stroke play or match play. Clearly they believe that any good architecture can accomodate both types of format although Bobby Jones very clearly has explained that it is necessary, or certainly sensible, to approach and manage one's game on good architecture differently depending on which format you're playing.

Their warning basically involved what they called a disturbing influence on the "values" of the game by that stroke play mentality in its demand for "fairness" (they called it "equity"). They said they felt that might influence the "poetry" of the game (all of it--including probably all its formats) and take it into other channels.

By this they meant the influence of the stroke play mentality (fairness) on all forms of golf, although back then most of those men thought of golf more as match play in essence.

But again they did not say that there needed to be separate architecture for either format--they were obviously implying a warning that that would never be a good thing or a necessary thing. They believed in the luck factor in golf in any format and they believed in multi-optionalism too--certainly not the shot dictated, center directed architecture we see so much of today.

Now Shackelford has said that that warning was not ever heeded and there definitely is a "stroke play" mentality or an over reliance or over-concern about "fairness" today amongst so many golfer who play BOTH formats--match and stroke play.

It's absolutely undeniable to me--I see it everywhere I go, at my club, at all clubs, in tournaments either match or stroke--everywhere.

The call for an over-reliance on fairness dials down on the use of luck and multi--optionalism in golf and archtiecture which utilizes those things to make all form of golf more interesting is what Shackelford is saying. He's saying bring back the match play mentality because unexpected happenstances in that format are just not so important and hopefully then that "stroke play" mentality--or overconcern about fairness in all of golf can begin to disipate.

If either you or Rick are going to tell me there is not overconcern with "fairness" in golf today I'm just going to have to completely disagree with the both of you without feeling the necessity to explain this further.

Again, just forget completely about the title of this thread--because it's applicablity to Dan King's intial post , including Shackelford's article is not important. Just read those quotes and Shac's article and see what they say--it's about a stroke play mentality that has now lead to a type of architecture today that really is not interesting or good for any format!!!

As for pin setting--frankly I really don't know what to say but in light of this very subject why would it matter? These men in these quotes have said golf should probably maintain it's values, it poetry and both formats can handle those values and poetry.

But the reality today may be that pins can be a bit more intense with match play than stroke play, again because the loss of something in match play just shouldn't have as much significance in the minds of golfers today compared to stroke play, for a variety of reasons, including handicapping (a very deleterious form of "stroke play" mentality)! The reality of a "stroke play" mentality has been around a long time and it would be a good thing to see it entirely out of golf. But to help accomplish that a renewed feeling for the match play game would be a real help--shackelford is also saying that!

For pin settings in either, perhaps we could get David Eger on here at some point as he's the one that used to do the set-ups for both the USGA and the PGA Tour.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
As I said at the beginnig of this thread IMO there is no such thing as a purely match play or medal golf course. But there are courses whose architecture leans one way or the other - architecture favoring match promotes choice, dramatic risk/reward and architecture favoring medal is concerned with protecting par.

I disagree that no one wants a steady diet of anything, people do not want a steady diet of golf courses that are stimulating, that provoke thought and that are challenging but also playable for the hacker.

" I think average golfers often play the same course over and over because they cannot make it play like a steady diet, they/we are not good enough." You lost me there.

I love Pebble Beach. If I was condemmed to play the course the rest of my life, I would accept that condemnation gratefully. If however it was in US Open set up, my gratefullness would not be so great. That medal mentality would have detremental effect on my enjoyment; the contricting set up effects the architecture. Another golf course that has been effected by the medal mentality is ANGC. If given the choice I'd choose the less penal form of ANGC - the architecture is more interesting.

The negative attitude is not against medal play, but the effect a medal mentality can have upon golf architecture.

Have you read the The Architectural Side of Golf or The Spirit of St.Andrews? If so do you think the authors advocate match play over medal play?

[guest]

TEPaul,

Thanks for yet another long response. You are a good sport. I do not agree with you mostly because I don't see the changes in architecture being dictated by a "stroke play mentality". I play mostly matches with friends. I would say, 9 out of 10 rounds I play are friendly matches. I see the equipment that everyone is using. We are all trying to take away the little OR BIG inconsistencies in our games with balls that go farther and straighter. We all like putting surfaces that are true, etc. I just don't see where some sort of "fairness" mentality kicks in when we play for score. If you were to go throught this thread and substitute the phrase "match play mentality" for "stroke play mentality" it would make just as much or as little sense to me as it does now. But you are definitely a good sport and that is a mentality I like. (By the way, my guess is that the pin placements would be basically the same either way, but that is just a guess)

Tom M, I am sorry I lost you. Steady diets can become boring. I was just saying that our (the average golfer) golf games are not good enough for a given golf course to become steady enough to be boring. We spend too much time discovering new untried angles into the greens and the like. Steady diets of wide ranging golf features are not really steady diets at all, they are varying diets. That is all I am saying.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
Spoken like a true card and pencil man.

Steady diets, varying diets, liquid diets...forget the diets. The point that Simpson and MacKenzie were trying to make is that golf courses that do not provide choice are no fun - for the average Joe or the Tiger. Why do you think the Old course has remained stimulating to all levels of golfer for so many years? Do you think you would be able to discover your untired angles, if the fairway is choked by rough - there ain't whole lot of angles on a course designed to protect par.

Have you read those books and if so, do the authors advocate match play over medal?

[guest]

Tom MacWood,

Are you trying to pigeon hole me with your "card and pencil man" comment? If so, I would appreciate it if you would check your tone. Thanks.

If you have other S&W quotes that you would like to add feel free. The one that Dan King used did not say anything about "stroke" or "match" play mentality. Why should I assume anything? In the end however, those authors don't tell me what to think. I have my own thoughts based on my own experience. It is fascinating to read whay they have to say, but there are many voices in the world of golf. So I just factor in as much as I can along with my own experiences.

By the way, I am the one who typed all the MacKenzie quotes above. I actually added to the oft-used quote about "card and pencil". The rest of that passage doesn't get much play. But it tells a larger story when I read it. I talks about the fun of a flesh and blood match. That emphasis is not about architecture, but about the mechanics of a certain kind of competition. I have my interpretation of what I read, including Bobby Jones' foreward to MacKenzie's book where he talks about how the game of golf needs to be for the average golfer as well as the scratch golfer. So it sounds like a wide ranging game. I like it just the way it is. I hope you can allow me to have my opinion without resorting to trying to add labels. I think the sad thing about this whole thread and many here on GCA is that people want to label other people simply because they have opinions. I would not dream of labeling someone with "match play mentality" as if they were wrong. Why should I care if someone loves golf courses that require a different kind of tee shot than that of a US Open Pebble Beach? On the contrary, I am happy for them. My local public course has almost no rough, lots of trees that are limbed up so that you can hit out of trouble and plenty of strategy for my buddies and I. Is it wide open like TOC? No. It works for us in our matches and our medal games just the same.

You don't know me nor do you have any business labeling me a match play man or a card and pencil man. Feel free to do so if it makes you feel better, but I don't think it makes for pleasant discussion. And it is not the end of the world if I don't agree with you Tom. And might I say with utmost respect for your position, for the most part I don't agree with you. But I wish you well nonetheless.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
I'm sorry if you found my comments about being a card and pencil man offensive - it was unussually cruel on my part. I sometimes forget that most anonymous posters are quite sensative.

Perhaps we do disagree, I'm still trying to figure out your postion (regarding match vs medal play courses/architecture).

Would you prefer playing Pebble Beach under normal conditions or would you prefer to play Pebble Beach with US Open rough and 20-yard wide landing areas. Why?

[guest]

Tom M, I wouldn't mind playing PB under any conditions. I like golf more than any game because the playing field coupled with my game combines to make for fun and challenge. As I look to the future, I love the thought that I will get to play the game of golf on many different courses under many different conditions. Some will have wider fairways and some will require me to hit it straighter to land in the fairway. That I can play the same course to different pin positions is wonderful. One of the great things about more modern courses is that there are typically more sets of tees. That will allow me to play the game as my golf game gets shorter. That will be true whether the fairways are wide or not. I can just move up to the forward tees.

By the way, and this is my next question for TEPaul   ,is the added choice that comes with multiple tees a result of "stroke paly mentality" or is it "choice" and therefore a result of "match play mentality"? TEPaul, this is one you HAVE to answer!  Don't stop just yet!

In the end, it all sounds great to me. I think Rich is correct.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
Fascinating.

I agree with Rich too! (partially)

No preference hey? I commend you for your open-mindedness, you like it all and look foward to it all. Its hard to disagree with anyone with such broad tastes and a positive outlook  - its no wonder you don't see any differences in the medal and match golf. You're not a card and pencil man, you are stick and ball man--give you a stick and ball and you'll be happy anywhere.

I have a question for TE Paul also---could you please translate that last question 'guest' asked?

[guest]

Tom M, in the event that my last question to TEPaul was not clear, I will state it again and a little differently:

Since "choice" has been used here as a good aspect of a "match play" hole, where does the concept of multiple tees fall into the equation? They obviously provide choice. Most new golf courses, even the ones being produced out of the so-called "stroke play mentality" have multiple tees. So are they the result of match or stroke play mentality?

You are correct. It is hard to argue with someone who is happy. Golf is here to make us happy. Think of the alternative. I prefer a positive outlook over a negative one every day for myself. The world is full of talk of war and critical politics, Social Darwinism and unnecessary repression. But if arguing is what you want, I see that the Cigar thread is a doosy! The glass is never full in life. The key is whether I choose to look at the empty part of the glass or the part with liquid in it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pollyana...err...guest
I'm sorry that you characterize our discussion as an arguement - not very half-full of you.

You have a wonderful outlook. I wish I could look all golf courses with such innocent bliss. I suppose all this talk of what is outstanding golf architecture, sadly what is not, is a bit unsettling.

That is a particularly good question for TE about the mulitiple tees, if I'm not mistaken it was Flynn who was among the first to advocate mutiple tees--many years ago.

[guest]

Tom M,

I should have used the word "disagree" since that is a word you used, instead of argue. I truly didn't mean to misrepresent you. My post was in response to what I perceive is your desire for me to accept some point/s you are making. Your tone in calling me a "card and pencil man" or a "stick and ball man" seems to me to be at best passive aggressive. But maybe I am wrong. I can't read your mind and email is not the easiest thing to interpret. That is why I used the phrase "IF arguing is what you want". IF it is not what you want, then disregard any advice to head over to the Cigar thread. The point is that it is okay if we do disagree without you trying to pigeon-hole me or me trying to pigeon-hole you, or even you trying to change my mind. It really is okay. I don't want to be a part of some unhealthy disagreement like the Cigar thread. Fair enough?

However, now you are in fact name-calling when you use the word "Pollyana". It is interesting that TEPaul and I can have such a fun, useful discussion from both sides of this issue without name-calling. It seems to me to be kind of pathetic the way these threads dive into the personal muck for no good reason. Wouldn't it be more gracious to just agree to disagree rather than name-calling? I assume you have better things to do with your time than to call me names. Could you not just let me be happy without calling me a name and move on? If you cannot do that, I will, with utmost respect for your position on this thread, but without any respect at all for your name-calling style of dialogue, just move on myself. I cannot see any good reason to engage in a discussion with someone who takes personal shots at me on this website. That is not what I come here for. It is not fun and it is not healthy. Fair enough?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

guest
I thought we were having fun?

Do you find Pollyana a derogatory term--I do not--I think it describes your optimism perfectly. And by the way how can an alias be insulted, you do not exist, you are fictitious.

[guest]

Tom M, do whatever makes you feel better. It is a free website. I have seen how threads spiral downward at around this point in discussions. I hope you are happy playing your part.

TEPaul, feel free to answer my questions if you like. If you have moved on to other topics, that is great too. See you when I read you!

Rich, I think you are correct as far as this topic is concerned.

[TEPaul]

guest:

You ask a lot of questions--but they're very good questions--frankly unexpected ones, too, which probably has to be a good thing.

Mostly, though, these days, I try hard to look at golf architecture not simply through my own personal opinions, like my own game, but through the eyes and times that they happened or evolved in and then to make some sense out of where it all came from, how it evolved, where it is, and where it might be going.

But first, please don't get personally defensive on here about an apparent "attitude" somebody might seem to show. We're all doing the best we can on this Internet website which since it's typed back and forth responses on an unusual medium is not much like people face to face or even on the telephone. It's actually a lot harder to do it this way.

But your last question, that you want an immediate answer about;

"By the way, and this is my next question for TEPaul ,is the added choice that comes with multiple tees a result of "stroke paly mentality" or is it "choice" and therefore a result of "match play mentality"? TEPaul, this is one you HAVE to answer!  Don't stop just yet!  

That's a good one, certainly sort of fundamental to modern golf. Give me some time to think about that one--and hopefully in the evolutionary context it should be couched in--even if looked at today.

I like the way you present the question though--Is it "choice" or a "stroke play" mentality?

That's a good one but I'll have some kind of answer after a while even if you disagree, it matters not.

By the way, I want to say this in the most inoffensive and uncondescending way possible. I admire what you're doing on here with all this posting and all these questions. And I admire the way you insist on looking at golf architecture in your own personal way now--that's as it should be and the way that most of the best architect's probably clearly wanted it to be.

But do me and yourself a favor. You stick on here the way you are now for another year or so and I will absolutely guarantee you that your ideas and opinions on architecture will begin to change, to become much broader, much more accepting of things in the larger context of it all.

It's not really meant to be this way or that way, I don't think--it can be all ways--the deal is in the differences because golfers will always be different and want different things--but again, a year from now you will be much more confident with your personal opinions, probably more satisfied with them and even though you might not even express them so much, again I guarantee you things will be clearer for you generally speaking!

I'll guranatee you of that. Hang in here and please don't be defensive on this website--it really does no good for you or anyone else!

[ForkaB]

guest

Hang in there.  Not only do you have an impeccable sense of what is right and what is wrong and an admirably broad view as to what contitutes "golf", you are teaching us a thing or two, as well as learning.  that is what life is all about.

Don't feel obliged to either give your real name or a real e-mail address, unless you want to.  The fact that so many people on this site get apoplectic when confronted with people who want to protect their privacy mystifies me, but I respect their right to get apoplectic.  It's part of the "free dissembly" clause in the Constitution.

"Gladly wolde he lerne and gladly teche."  Chaucer.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

"Rich, I think you are correct as far as this topic is concerned!" -- guest.

No wonder he uses an alias.

[TEPaul]

If golfers looked at golf holes, golf courses, certainly all of golf in even remotely the same way, it wouldn't be half so interesting, don't you think?

I mean how much differently can any tennis player look at any tennis court?

It's probably up to a good golf course architect do his best to see that it stays that way. When I hear people, particularly  on here, start to explain how the architect meant any golfer to play a hole I start to wonder if they're not misunderstanding things in a fundamental way.

The example that's always comes to my mind although I've never been to the course is that hole at St. Andrews where even longtime caddies disagree completely. I've heard it said that one will recommend you go 50 yards over that way and the other swears you should go 50 yards over in another direction. Fundamentally that has to be what great architecture is all about.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

How's that old song go?

"You take the low road and I'll take the high road...and I'll be in Scotland before ye.."

Not a bad architectural principle, don't you think?

[TEPaul]

Where in America the general thought seems to be--here's the direct way, now take it--don't even think about trying to get clever--this is all about single minded efficiency pal. Charm on what line? What are you talking about?

[ForkaB]

Tommy

I'm not sure if you are talking to me, yourself or "guest" in that last post, but with all your obsession on pathways and lines of charm and the highly-practiced incoherent ramblings of St. Andrews caddies,  I think you would be wise to follow Yogi Berra's advice

"When you come to a fork in the road, take it."

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I'm glad you asked. I'm talking to myself apparently but it's been a wonderful conversation. It's over now though.

PS:

Do you, however, understand the value in width in golf architecture?

[ForkaB]

You know I do, Tom--you've seen me play.

As for you, however, how can somebody who never strays more than a foot or two from the "line of charm" have any concept of what it might be like to find yourself at other often less salubrious places on any golf hole?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

That's not what I mean at all by width. I'm not talking about a big open 80 yard wide fairway. I'm talking about real use of width in architecture where inside that 80+ yards are all kinds of things going on, bunkers, any other interchangeable features, angles, whatever. That way when any golfer stands on the tee or whatever there are all kinds of things to choose to do, all kinds of interest, directions, distances etc. That's what I mean by the use of width in architecture. Something other than architectural dictation and definition basically right down the middle of a stripe of fairway.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I understood completely what you meant.  I thought it was such a simple question that a bit of humor might suffice for a reply.  I've played several hundred rounds over courses that would be on anybody's list of top-ten "width" venues.  I agree that, all other things being equal, properly used width is good.

Oh, and I forgot to add....properly used width "works" equally well for match play and "card and pencil" golf.........