[Tony_Muldoon]

in the education of architects?

One of the sub texts on here is why with all the advantages available to the modern architect do we prefer the work of the old dead guys? I don’t think I’ve ever seen it articulated quite like this. (From the Ryder Cup doctor thread).

It might be noted, at this juncture, that most 'Golden Age' courses, if they were designed for anything, it was matchplay. Strokeplay didn't become the dominant format until?? When was it?? Could there be a correlation between the ascent of strokeplay and the descent of design aesthetics??

McDonald, Ross, Colt and McKenzie, to name a few, certainly grew up playing matchplay. The holes they found most ‘fun and challenging’ would have offered all the things that as a group we hold dear.  Recently Tom Doak has written of how refreshing he’s found his recent visits to Scotland and as far as I can see he’s always described playing matches on the courses he visits.

For the purposes of this thread I don’t think it’s relevant to make the case for the modern architect who labours under a whole new set of restrictions.

The question being, is a diet of matchplay fundamental to the development of the greatest architects?


(apologies to TEP, edits were simultaneous with your posting)

[TEPaul]

"The question is, was a diet of matchplay fundamental for the development of the greatest architects?"

Tony:

Of course.

The real irony is probably 95% of the world's golfers still play match play golf today. Probably 99% of recreational golf is on the match play format.

So what happened that made the stroke play mentality infuse itself into most golfers' minds and into architecture to such an extent and to basically open the floodgates to a perception that architecture should be more fair and less luck oriented?

The modern handicap system, that's what.

Although perhaps 99% of recreational golf is played at match play the handicap posting system requires a single round GROSS score and that is the STROKE PLAY format and not the match play format.

In my opinion, if the world of handicapping wanted to break from this deleterious perception it's created in golf and architecture they should require hole by hole posting for handicap purposes because that is the MATCH PLAY format.

If that were done I have no doubt that issues and perceptions with fairness and luck would be seriously minimized over a rather short amount of time.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
While I don't doubt the connection you make between
stroke play/handicaps/architecture/fairness, I do wonder if the format itself, which had been around for about 150 years prior to modern systems of handicapping, had anything to do with it? I think you could suppose that the pressure from professional events, with their ever-growing purses, had as much to do with our  "perceptions (of) fairness and luck"  as did handicapping.  

Doesn't ESC, and posting a probable score, address the differences in stroke/match play scores?

I

[A.G._Crockett]

Doesn't ESC, and posting a probable score, address the differences in stroke/match play scores?

I

Jim,
I'm not going to be able to explain this, but I have NO doubt that the handicapping system as we use it almost guarantees that the handicaps won't work properly for match play.  ESC and probable scores aside, using a stroke play handicap method for match play handicaps just about guarantees that low handicappers cannot win at handicapped match play vs. mid-handicappers, especially in two-man competitions.

Now, how exactly that ties in to GCA, I won't even take a shot at explaining!

[Willie_Dow]

Good observation, Tony !  Stroke play competition also started the volume of The Rules of Golf.  From the little book created in Pinehurst by Tufts, to the four inch thick "Decisions", not only the archies had to adjust, but the players started to wonder what was the correct way to play the game ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

A.G.,
There is a small bias built into handicaps that favors the lower handicap player. It probably works best if you aren't inflating your ego by deflating your posted scores.
The odds of a mid-handicap player shooting incredibly well in a tournament can border on the astronomical, unless you're competing against a thief(or two). http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html
 
Anyway, I've never been in a competition where two lows are playing two mids, unless you are including a Sunday four-ball. If you are, you've gotta cultivate better negotiating skills.        

[Jim_Kennedy]

Willie,
I've heard it said here that golf began changing once relief was allowed. I think that started around 1754, while match  was the only form of play.

[ForkaB]

The great old matches of the 19th century such as between Old Tom Morris and Willie Park were done mostly at stroke play (which they called "greens"--being the name for all 18 (or whatever) holes) rather than match play (which they called "holes").

[David Sneddon]

Willie,
I've heard it said here that golf began changing once relief was allowed. I think that started around 1754, while match  was the only form of play.

I attend a golf event every year in Columbus, Ohio.  It is hosted by a new member on this board, Dave Collard, and is now in its' 11th year.
On the Saturday we play the tournament round in the morning, then in the afternoon we play nine holes of Match Play Madness, Ohio vs The World.  In the true spirit of the gemme, anyone can play for Ohio or the World as long as the numbers match.
Match Play Madness is a tribute to C.B. McDonald, in that the following Rules are observed:

1.There are no Rules
2. See #1

The ball is placed on the tee and that is the only time you may touch your ball - no relief from cartpaths, obstructions, whatever - you play the ball as it lies.  Should your ball interfere with an opponent's or team members line on the green you are permitted to pick up the ball, but only on request, with two fingers, no cleaning permitted.

It is a great way to play the game, and we even exported it to Scotland, in 2004, when we played a UK team.

[Willie_Dow]

Rich - I got out my Willie Dow file, where I see he was third @ 171, 1861 Prestwick, behind Old Tom Morris @ 163, and Willie Park Snr @167.  Each professional had to have a marker walking the course with him.  The amateurs were excused this as they were considered above cheating.
Then I see references from the "Golfers Yearbook for 1866 where matches between Old Willie Park (First Open Champion in 1860) and Willie Dow.  At Prestwick, 1862, a 12 hole match was won by Park by 4 holes.  A 24 hole match in 1863 was won by Dow by 2 holes.
Thanks for the input of "holes" and "greens" !

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,
There is a small bias built into handicaps that favors the lower handicap player. It probably works best if you aren't inflating your ego by deflating your posted scores.
The odds of a mid-handicap player shooting incredibly well in a tournament can border on the astronomical, unless you're competing against a thief(or two). http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html
 
Anyway, I've never been in a competition where two lows are playing two mids, unless you are including a Sunday four-ball. If you are, you've gotta cultivate better negotiating skills.        

Jim,
The bias in favor of the lower handicap works fine in a stroke play format; I don't think it holds up in match play.  For a very simple example, if a 5 plays a 14, the 14 is typically a guy who can make a fair number of pars during the round, and maybe even a birdie.  The reason he is a 14 is because he also can't stay away from big numbers 3 or 4 times a round.  In stroke play, the 9 shot difference holds up because the 5 makes par on a couple of holes where the 14 makes triple, but in match play, that only costs the one hole.  Tack on the holes where the 14 gets a shot and makes a gross par, and you have a problem.

As to where this is played, many, many club tournaments use a match play format, either singles or a four-ball, with full or 80% handicaps.  It's been my experience that only rarely do low handicappers win these competitions, and I am NOT talking about vanity handicaps here.  TEPaul is right; establishing handicaps in stroke play and using them for match play is a disconnect.

[Bill_McBride]

As I recall, the score card at Oakmont has the differential in handicaps x 85% (or 80%?) actually printed in the card.  Never saw that before!

The truth is that most US amateur / club golf is played as match play.  Then the guys turn in their scores which include pick ups figured as doubles (not correct ESC even) and lots of gimmes ("that's good").  The result is that the average club player sports a vanity handicap.  Most don't travel well.

The UK handicap system is, I suspect, much more accurate.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The real irony is probably 95% of the world's golfers still play match play golf today. Probably 99% of recreational golf is on the match play format.

I really doubt that this is the case.  Before I joined a private club I never played match play.  My friends who don't belong to clubs never, ever play match play - most of them don't even know how it works.  They play golf the way they see it in TV - count every stroke and whoever has the lowest score is the winner at the end. Since the majority of golfers play at public courses how can this be true?

Another things is that more than 1% of recreational play is players who are playing by themselves - either as a single or joining a group that they don't compete with.  How do you play match play as a single?

[Lloyd_Cole]

How do you play match play as a single?

Wayne
Not playing a match doesn't necessarily mean you're playing stroke play... I play quite often as a single and I very rarely putt out unless the putt is exciting - eg a birdie, or a great up and down. I could care less what I shoot on my own - there is no pressure, no it is no guage of how I'll shoot in competition.. I'm usually just practicing.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()