What if Matchplay was the only form of Golf?

[Padraig Dooley]

A few of the recent threads regarding score, which tees to use, fairness of hazards lead me to the question.

How would golf courses and golf course design differ if the only form of golf played was matchplay?

I find people are preoccupied by score and tend to condemn something (unexpected or "unfair") that can ruin a score.

Would hazards be more varied?
Would distance or the debate surrounding distance still be discussed?
Would golf be quicker?

There are many more similar questions. Just wondering what you guys think.

[Tom_Doak]

Padraig:

That is a simple but profound question.  I've heard lots of people argue the merits of match play, but no one before has proposed eliminating the other forms.

For certain, you would see much more variety in the lengths of holes if there was no card and pencil ... some lengths are dismissed as "too easy" or "too hard" even though they would be interesting in match play.

[Glenn Spencer]

I like this question. I think that score plays on members and other people's mind quite bit, not as much with the architect's, according to what you read. I think the thing that most comes into question is what club are they hitting into the green and I just heard Nicklaus yesterday say that he wanted them to hit driver on 15 at MVGC. I think they don't want someone hitting the green in 2 on a par five with an iron or 3 wood of  the tee. Even if it was just match play today, I think everyone would still be scrambling to find more distance in the course.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I think you'd probably see less emphasis on designing spectacular/tough/"signature" (etc.) finishing holes than we do at present, given that holes 18-17-16 wouldn't feature in a great many matches. You'd probably see more time and effort devoted to holes 12-13-14-15.

(By the way, not to hijack the thread, but I've often wondered what professional golf would be like with an inverted ratio of strokeplay to matchplay events - i.e. you'd have a couple of novelty strokeplay events, but the majority of competition was conducted at matchplay. Would it be almost exactly like the tennis circuit, or might variances emerge?)

Cheers,
Darren

[Mark_Fine]

I'm just curious how matches would be handicapped (if at all)?  How would your regular foursome play a match if there is a significant differece in golfing abilities in the group?    

[Mike Nuzzo]

For certain, you would see much more variety in the lengths of holes if there was no card and pencil ... some lengths are dismissed as "too easy" or "too hard" even though they would be interesting in match play.

Tom do you find the dismissals come on the individual hole lengths or the overall totals?
I was recently asked extend a routing study over 7,000 yards - so I lenthened the long ones... with no objections over the short 4s.

Padraig,
Is the game more match play in the UK?

One difference - no one would ask the universal question "what did you shot?"
It would be where did you play, was it fun...

[Darren_Kilfara]

I'm just curious how matches would be handicapped (if at all)?  How would your regular foursome play a match if there is a significant differece in golfing abilities in the group?    

They wouldn't, and you probably couldn't. Again, a bit like tennis, really - you'd simply have to play against your opponents on their merits. Which has its attractions, I must say...I like playing better golfers than me straight up, in part for the challenge and in part to know that any "victory" I achieve isn't fundamentally hollow, and equally I'm not a big fan of giving 8-10 shots to someone over the course of 18 holes, which significantly changes the way I have to play the game.

Cheers,
Darren

[ForkaB]

I think it would be a bit goofy, as the greater subtlety of stroke play would be lost.  Handicaps would probably disappear, which would be a good thing.  Also, I would presume that matches would be scored the way they were in the old days, i.e. in terms of "holes up" after a full 18 rather than finishing when the match was "over" in terms of winnability.  This would be good too, and solve the design problem Darren brought up.

[JESII]

That's also a pretty good way to handicap matches between uneven caliber players. Just start the first hole a certain number of holes up or down, as the case may be.

[Glenn Spencer]

That's also a pretty good way to handicap matches between uneven caliber players. Just start the first hole a certain number of holes up or down, as the case may be.

JES,

That would be the correct way of doing it, yes, but scary at the same time. I could be 7down after 3, I have lost the first three holes quite a few times to guys that I would be giving holes to. At least I would have time to make it up.

[Padraig Dooley]

I just find there is too much 'card and pencil' spirit among golfers especially better ones. If there was no strokeplay more heroic shots would be attempted and this may lead to more heroic design.

I think one might identify holes as being short, long or by difficulty and not necessarily by par. There might be less complaining about conditions as your opponent would have the exact same ones.

I would imagine a club committee could set handicaps with knowledge of people's games. As for inter-club matches, I wonder what happened in Scotland during the origins of the game?

The strange thing is I've been a pro for about 4 years and have not played a serious match since my amateur days. It's all strokeplay and it gets a bit monotonous.

[Padraig Dooley]

Rich

Just an observation, I always thought matchplay was more subtle, way more mind games. No?

[TEPaul]

If match play was the only form of golf, modern MAN would invent stroke play in about one tenth of a New York second. He just can't help himself from his fixation with numbers.  

[Tony Ristola]

There would be a greater variety of holes.
"Fairness" wouldn't be near as important to many developers, and could be replaced by the word "adventure".

[ForkaB]

Rich

Just an observation, I always thought matchplay was more subtle, way more mind games. No?

Padraig

I was being a bit provocative, because I know the conventional wisdom on GCA (and elsewhere) thinks as you do.

My experience is that match play gravitates to the extremes of golf--smashball if want to intimidate an opponent or feel you "need" to win a hole, and wimpball if your oppontent drives OB or you think he might do so if you bore him to death.  There are a number of shots that require no brains, such as the 6-footer you need to make for a half, the chip you need to get into 3-putt range because your client has been in the boondai.

On the other hand, every single shot in stroke play counts, and every shot has a number of ways of playing it, depending on your capabilites, objectives and attitude towards risk.  Every type of shot you play has some sort of fractional "par" value.  In match play it tends to be far more binary.

Comprende?

Rich