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.


Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2002, 12:40:06 AM »
In all the many, many times that this issue has been bandied about on this site over the years, I have never heard anybody, including Brad Klein, make a decent case for the proposition that there golf holes which are better (or worse) for match vs. medal play, or vice versa.  To me, the quality and characterisitcs of a golf hole are completely independent of what form of the game you are playing.  Those who feel otherwise, please enlighten me. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

allysmith

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2002, 02:26:36 AM »
In many years of Match Play in Scotland I think two glaring points stand out.

1. A narrow fairway is used to reward a risk taking long shot. This only works when the weather conditions allow.

This was blatently emphasised at Carnoustie when with a strong wing the narrow fairways and hard ground was almost impossible to hit with an iron never mind a wood. From a matchplay point of view, in this case it matters not a jot whether the player is 5 or 15 yards off the fairway. Advantage for Accuracy is negated and the situation is ridiculous.

The summary of the point is that narrow fairways are NOT a protection they are merely a hinderance to PAR. PAR is merely a state of mind in matchplay.

The second point is (in reply to Mr Goodales point) an good match play hole  is fundamentally different to a good stroke-play hole.

A good matchplay hole should give advantage to a single point risk/reward shot. This then allows the player to get an advantage over his oponent (phisically and psychologically) for the next shot. The hole is a single element leading to a result of player versus player

A good strokeplay hole is one of 18. Strokeplay is an individual event where the hole is one strategic element amongst 18 others. In other workds it forms part of a bigger plan.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2002, 03:30:56 AM »
Ally.  Why is a good match play hole (i.e. one by your definition offerring a good risk/reward qotient) not also a good medal/stroke play hole?  I can't think of a single one.  Yes, the way you play them is different depending on the circumstances on the day, but I still fail to see any fundamental architectural difference.

Rich "20+ years of match and medal play competitive golf in Scotland" Goodale

PS--as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of competitive golf in Scotland and the rest of the UK is stroke play, rather than match play.  Casual golf/bounce games are mostly match play, which is the main difference between the UK and the US, due to the differences in the handicapping systems, as well as predilection.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2002, 04:10:31 AM »
Theoretically (or maybe actually) Rich is right to ask what would the difference be really between a good match play course or hole?

Obviously one that probably relates to degrees of danger or penalty somehow.

The differences between the two forms of play and how architecture treats it is really just one of a golfer's perception.

Certainly many many people believe that if real stroke losing danger exists on a course or a hole that it probably isn't a good stroke play course.

But is that true if there's reasonable alternatives to that danger (ideally being high risk/reward situations)?

Of course not! The only real reason courses or holes like that become known as bad stroke play holes or courses is because people get tempted into trying those high risk/large stroke losing situations and their ENTIRE ROUND goes up in smoke as to the much less consequential single hole disaster of the match play format!

But if there are reasonable alternatives to those dangerous stroke dropping situations the hole or course should be equally good in either format.

But the choices of conservative or aggressive play should be there and reasonably so!

#16 Cypress is probably representative of this whole question. Some people say it's the ultimate match play hole and that high risk/reward option of going for the green makes it so! But the hole also has a very reasonable conservative alternative to not drop mutiple shots.

Most people when they get there, though, just want to try that high risk option and so they generally get killed stroke-wise and instead of just admitting that they had the choice to play the hole conservatively (and very reasonably so) but that they just didn't take it and the problems they had (in lossing strokes) was their own and not the hole, it architecture or MacKenzie, or match or stroke play!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2002, 06:03:34 AM »
As a thought experiment, think of golfers as facing two basic kinds of penalties.

The first are penalties that arise from bad mishits.  I shank my PW approach, no telling what touble I will find.  More importantly, there is a universal sense that a mishit of that magnitude richly deserves whatever penalties it gets.

The second are penalties that arise from minor mishits or even well struck shots.  There is a sense (in the US at least) that it is an "unfair" result if I push my drive 5 yards off line that (a) it is lost, (b) I must chip backwards out of a bunker, (c) I have a blind approach to the green, (d) my ball comes to rest in a hazard I could not see from the tee, (e) my ball rolls down a rock cliff to the wine dark sea, (f) my ball kicks sideways from the fairway into gorse (and I slice my hand into a bloody stump trying to recover it), or (g) etc.

That sense of unfairness comes, I think, from a belief that a round can be ruined by reason of only a slight mishit.  That the punishment does not fit the crime.  You would only come to that conclusion, however, if you measure your round by a final medal score.  

Making certain that the punishment does fit the crime is a distinguishing feature of golf course architecture today in the US.  (BTW, I don't think many of the Golden Agers bought into the concept.  I talking about US gca in the Age of Fazio.)

It is not a distinguishing feature of courses in Scotland.  Slight mishits are frequently severely punished and, I assume, they ruin medal rounds even in Scotland.  It is a sign of the cultural superiority of the Scots that they don't seem to care as much as us colonists. ;)

Specific holes. The Pit at N. Berwick. I played with a guy last week who, after a superb drive and a well-struck second shot, watched his ball hit the top of the wall and bound into the North Atlantic beyond the dune left of the green. His provisional landed just short of the wall, requiring him to chip backwards. This guy had a great round going and takes an 9 on a short par 4 where he really didn't mishit anything. I am aware that such results can happen anywhere, anytime, but I have little doubt that holes like The Pit make it happen a lot more frequently than at, say, Medinah.

I could go on with holes in Scotland. The green at the 16th at N.Berwick, the blind shots at 15 and 16 at Cruden Bay. The Himalaya and Alps holes at Prestwick. The funky bounces balls take on virtually every fairway at R. Dornoch.

These are the kinds of holes that for me are no fun to play if you are serious about posting a medal score. They don't have bail-outs, they involve pure luck, they will break your heart (or at least my shallow American heart).  

But they are absolutely wonderful match play holes.  Unsurpassed. I loved each and every one. They would make a match more fun and interesting, certainly more fun and interesting than the same match played on a "fair" Fazio course.

When I was in Scotland last week I wondered often why the quirks you see in great links courses have not travelled well to the US.  I think it has to do with the American medal mindset.  I don't pretend to understand the Scottish mindset, but they clearly aren't as bothered as we are by a snowman now and again.  Or at least they don't take it as a basis for indicting the golf course architecture.

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

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2002, 06:05:30 AM »
A correction.  My reference in my post above to the North Atlantic should be to the North Sea.

Sorry.

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

Herb_Flood

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2002, 06:27:19 AM »
BCrosby:

I do not think courses in Scotland are designed with match play in mind. I believe the lay of the land dictates the architecture there.

The USGA likes high rough and tight fairways...they always have. It's never been a secret. When you play in a USGA event, that's what you get.

The US Open, on the other hand, limited the potential winner to those who hit the "long straight" ball. The forced carries off the tee were ridiculous.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2002, 06:53:20 AM »
"I do not think courses in Scotland are designed with match play in mind. I believe the lay of the land dictates the architecture there."

I didn't say they were designed with match play in mind. I don't know what they had in mind. I do think that the great links courses are a bunch of fun to play in a match play format. For that format they are the best in the world.  There is no second place.

On the other hand, at least for an American suckled on all the typical American concerns with medal scoring, they are a lot less fun to play in a medal format.  As also noted, the Scots seemed to have gotten over that particular hump.

"The USGA likes high rough and tight fairways...they always have. It's never been a secret. When you play in a USGA event, that's what you get."

Can't argue with that.

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

Ralph Livingston

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2002, 06:54:49 AM »
BCrosby:
I second everything you said. All those quirky links holes make for exceptional match play, and probably somewhat less satisfying medal play if you don't have enough local knowledge to get around under the varying conditions. It is very easy to miss at the wrong time and be hosed but if you know those courses you shouldn't get into that position unless you are playing aggressively. And that is sort of the point in both medal and match is making those personal decisions on how aggressive or safe to play.
The course to present as a match play course is Kilspindie. At, I believe 5700, it is a very poor medal test, but with the usual 2-3 club wind becomes an incredible match play test. It has more risk reward than any other club I have seen as it seems like it is composed of all short par 4's. Although the second - par 5, into the wind, is one of the hardest holes I have played. If every tee shot on that course doesn't stop you and make you think hard about what to do, you are either a WAY better golfer than I, or very dumb in your course management skills.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ralph Livingston

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2002, 07:03:24 AM »
One other point-
Isn't the USGA stuck in having this model for course prep because we don't have windy courses that require wider fairways? How else can they toughen the courses in the US other than widening the fairways and tripling the amount of scatter bunkering? I over simplify but I hope you get my point.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2002, 09:23:09 AM »
Kevin,

I know that everyone likes to blame the USGA, but the HOST club has a lot to say about course conditions as well.

Many host clubs and their members don't want their course humiliated with very low scores, hence roughs are lush and deep, fairways narrowed, greens firm and fast.

I've attended a few US OPENS, some years ago, I've also seen conditions for USGA competitions for amateurs, worse than the old OPEN set-ups.  The only thing missing was the length, but the height and depth of the rough, narrow fairways and fast and firm greens rivaled the OPENS.
But, the HOST club wanted it that way as well.

This years USGA WOMAN'S Junior was played on a course LONGER than this years USGA WOMAN'S OPEN.

I don't think everybody wants to see the competitors teeing off with 5-irons, but I don't think everybody wants to see the competitors driving 350 yard greens either.

A DILEMA EXISTS.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2002, 09:32:54 AM »
Ralph L.

I haven't played Kilspindie, but I am very familiar with a similar length course on the other side of the Firth, Aberdour.  We have a relatively strong group of players for a small club (probably 20+ between 2 and 5) but the club championship (72 hole stroke play over 2 days) has been won for the past 15 years by our one quality player (+1/+2).  While just a good, but not great bit of architecture, it is a great match play course, for the reasons you give regarding Kilspindie, but the evidence from our championship (and my own 10 year experience) tells me that it is a fine medal test too, for the same reasons.

Cheers

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

Geoff Shackelford

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #37 on: August 22, 2002, 09:54:20 AM »
Patrick,
The funny thing is, the scores were surprisingly low in the qualifying on the South (I don't know how the North was setup, nor do I know how it plays, but the scores were much lower there). I would attribute this latest trend (where players still score on long couses with super narrow setups) to the elimination of any kind of thought, any reward for local knowledge, or any kind of "intelligent purpose" to the golf. Just let it rip, and if you are in the rough, you will at least be close to the hole (this was in evidence yesterday when one of the younger players had around 148 into #18 at Oakland Hills from the rough, after almost no roll...that is just scary, I know he's built like a linebacker, but still, that's a drive carrying at least 300 yards in the air).  

This all power, no substance shift is why we are going to see more and more teenagers playing big time golf. There is little reward for experience or creativity or shotmaking ability. So look for the course setups to get goofier, less interesting, and scoring to improve in spite of it all.

You say that, "In defense of the USGA, with wide fairways, balls and equipment that propel the ball further and straighter, to unthought of distances, how do you retain any elements of the strategy provided by the original architecture?"

Well whose fault is it that the equipment is propelling the ball further? The USGA has taken the old Joe Dey setup philosophy to new and goofy heights because they have lost control of the game. Their lack of action is indefensible. So they are covering their rear ends by ruining courses in cahoots with certain architects or setting courses up in weird ways with little in the way of positive results. (The US Open is rapidly losing its credibility as the premiere major because of the annual goofiness.)

As you have questioned and I agree, why the clubs are going along with it is the greatest mystery. What happened to the days when the USGA was "invited" to host their event at the club, and the clubs had an attitude that made the USGA scared. Why are places that pride themselves in having upper echelon memberships so clueless and willing to go along with all of this nonsense? Or why would a place like Riviera risk de-valuing its property because of the USGA? I just don't get it. And I suspect in five to ten years many of the classics that accomodated changes in the game will wonder why they did what they did.
Geoff
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #38 on: August 22, 2002, 10:13:13 AM »
Geoff,

A few years ago a study was done with respect to the merits of distance, and the significance/importance of accuracy.

The results indicated that players were better off in the rough, but closer to the hole, by a certain distance margin, which startled me at the time.

Don't ask me the threshold distance because I've forgotten it, but, at the time, it was clear that hitting it further, but in play to the extent that the ball was in the rough, was a clear advantage.

You may also recall, years ago, clubs being marketed as:
non-flyers.  Enabling balls hit from the rough to gain sufficient trajectory and spin, defeating or ameliorating the strategic effect of rough and accuracy off the tee.

The combination of the improvements in the ball and the equipment, have transitioned the game to a power game.

Personally, If I swung as hard at my old persimmon Toney Penna driver, as I do at the drivers I'm currently using, neighboring homes and cars would have staggering glazier bills.

The ball, gear effect, low-torque/no torque shafts, etc.,etc., have transitioned the game from:
"working the ball" to "killing the ball".

Clubs are swept along in the current, and it's tough to swim against or out of it.

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

allysmith

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2002, 10:54:33 AM »
Rich,

First off sory for spelling your last name wrong.

My point is that a hole which is fundamentally good for matchplay need not be a good stroke play hole. The reverse also stands.

I cite the 17th hole at my hole club Stonehaven. It is fundamentally badly designed. The fairway slopes at 30 degrees to the horizontal to thick rough below for 230 yards then the rough thins out. The green is very small and hard and the wind is nearly always into your face.

As a stroke play hole its a joke. As a matchplay hole it is fantastic.

Rabbit (22) and Shark (2) tee off with Shark dormie. Rabbit would normally easily make 5 here in stroke play and with his shot getnet par. But rabbi knows shark can drive to within 30 yards of he green. Does he go for a big tee shot and risk OOB right and left. Does he go for 5 and see if shark can bogey. Questions. Questions lead to doubt. Doubt leads to mistakes.

Shark on the othe hand knows tha abbit can easily make 5 but that he can also make 4. He knows rabbit gets a shot at 18 (par 3). So he has to make birdie and close out the match.
The tee shot is crucial. The second even more so.

Thats what makes a crap stroke play hole a good match play hole (I'm not sure the opposite applies). It has an influence on the next hole (dont happen in stroke play). It can finish a match early (dont happen in strokeplay) and it allows a good player to exert his prowess over a weaker one ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

John_D._Bernhardt

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2002, 11:06:00 AM »
The USGA should go back and take a breath. It has become a common theme on here about their setups losing the architecture and natural defenses of the course. It goes into the whole Rees Jones discussions about long being better and strategy being minimized. Every organization has its good times and bad. We are in a very bad time for the USGA on these course setups. Whether it be the US Am or the Open, set the course up to allow for the best player to win, not just the longest straightest good putter. It is a shame to bastardize a great course time and time again. This the organization of the game I love and I hope they get back on track soon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich Goodale (Guest)

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #41 on: August 22, 2002, 12:09:54 PM »
Ally

Don't worry about the name.  I just thought you had forgotten to put in the apostrophe, or had made a tyop.  In any case, many on the site, including beloved and imperial figures have called me far worse............

Your Stonehaven example tells me why we are disagreeing.  You are thinking of match (and medal?) play in terms of strokes given and taken.  I am thinking of both in terms of no handicaps allowed.  This is the golf I tend to play most often.  It is, also, I think, the context within which the majority of architectural questions must be discussed.  The fact (to use an extreme example) that a certain hole offers a particular strategic challenge to the octogenarian 40 handicap lady player is interesting, but not adding much to the "value" of that hole.  At least IMHO.......

Cheers

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

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2002, 04:15:23 PM »
John Bernhardt,

Wouldn't the longest and the straightest who was a very good putter win on almost any type of course, and course set-up ?

Wouldn't they win through the ages ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why narrow fairways and reduce par for match p
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2002, 10:06:06 AM »
This is a quote from a posting on the USGA Amateur website about the current, past and future course set-up ...

"Memories Of '96
The setup of the 2002 U.S. Amateur is basically the same as the one that faced the best players in the world at the 1996 U.S. Open. The South course at Oakland Hills was changed from a par 72 to a par 70 in the ‘96 Open, with both the 8th and 18th holes converted from par 5s to par 4s.

The fairway width, depth of rough and the length of the course is virtually the same as in 1996, according to Tom Meeks, Senior Director of Rules and Competitions for the USGA. The biggest change is the course plays a little longer, 6,988 yards, than it did in '96 at 6,974. Meeks said the fairways might even be a little narrower on some of the par-5 landing areas for the second shot.

With the Ryder Cup coming here in 2004 and the PGA Championship in 2008, it will be a while before another USGA event is played on the "Monster," the South Course’s nickname. When the USGA does return, Meeks indicated that the fairways would need to be narrowed a little more to a uniform 26 yards, with the exception of some holes that have severe undulations in them, like the par-4 10th."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"... and I liked the guy ..."