Routing question for architects: match play v. stroke play

[CJ Carder]

The thread below about the routing for Harding Park in the President's Cup next year got me thinking... when an architect is working on a routing of a new course, does the predominant type of play on the course enter into this routing?  I know a lot of things enter into this discussion (signature holes, location of the course, etc) but I'm just thinking overall. 

For example, I might assume that since match play is the more traditional form of golf in England & Scotland (for example), that architects might not give as much consideration to placing signature holes or difficult stretches at the end.  On our side of the pond over here, it seems like there's always a big emphasis to make the closing stretch of holes incredibly memorable, scenic, difficult, etc so as to finish off the round with a bang. 

I know amateurs always play all 18 holes anyway, so this may be a moot point altogether and only something reserved for professional tournaments (which we all know courses aren't usually specifically designed for anyway).

[Jason Topp]

CJ - you may be interested in the different routings used by Royal Melbourne on its composite course.  While the routings they use has varied over time, I know that they have one that is more match play oriented because it loops back near the clubhouse more often.

I also recall hearing that many courses have the 2nd green back near the clubhouse for matches that go extra holes.

[Lester George]

I try to extend the match as far back from the 18th hole in consideration of match play.  I like to think my routings do not favor any particular strength (length, finesse, bailout, putting, etc.) in an unfair way.

Of course, I could never have devised such and awe inspiring, thought-provoking, incredible one-of-a-kind piece of mastery as the "Bear Trap" which Miller and Hicks could not stop talking about all weekend. 

I believe my first golf course out of the chute has a better finish than that garbage. Of course, thats just my humble opinion.

Lester

[Adrian_Stiff]

I dont think about match play when I am considering a routing. I consider the balance of holes although I will always let the land over rule if there is a particulary good green site or feature. My focus would be on the course in terms of stroke play, but I think almost all good stroke play courses would make good match play courses anyway. However, I did some redesign work at Henbury Golf Club in 1997, I really wanted to change the existing numbering and after the 2nd hole go to the 11th as the 3rd (a par 3) then go 12-18 as 4-10, then 3rd to 10th as 11-18 mainly because the walking was better and it cut out a very difficult 300 yard walk from 2nd green to 3rd tee. The Club was mixed on what was better but did not change and the reason was that the course ended with two consective uphill holes and matches that ended at the 15th or 16th would involve a climb back to the clubhouse, so the club felt there was a routing issue for match play and to some degree I can see their point.

[Tom_Doak]

My work has been criticized in the past (even by the great Ran M.) for not building to a great finishing hole, because I tend to think more about match play than stroke play.

I've never had a client ask me to stress one over the other.  My thought (for which I'm certain I'm the exception, rather than the rule) is that most of our courses are not for tournament play, so the 18th hole is no more important than any other.  A casual game, even in the USA, is as likely to be played at match play as at stroke play.  And even if you are just out by yourself and keeping score, do you really want to get punched out on #18?  I tend to agree with Michael Pascucci on that one, which is why the 18th at Sebonack is a par five after all.

[Forrest Richardson]

CJ — I think most of the posters here are likely working for clients who would consider their courses "worldly", meaning that they could handle any type of play: stroke or match. I think even the purest of European clients would probably say, "I want it exciting for all...stroke play included."

For this reason, and the belief that stroke play begs an exciting finish, I have concluded that a series of thrilling finishers is always a good idea in routings. But, not at the expense of ignoring the other holes, especially those prone to be apart of reasonable equal matches.

Alice Cooper and I have discussed a closer with fire pits and snakes...maybe I should shift this to 14 or 15? 

[CJ Carder]

And even if you are just out by yourself and keeping score, do you really want to get punched out on #18?

I'm torn on the answer to that question.  When I play at my home course, I tend to think of the course in sections... you score on the front side and maybe 2 of the first 4 holes on the back, but then you hang on for dear life coming in with a 600+ par 5, an island green, and 3 430+ par 4's.  It's certainly a challenge right at the end and it is kind of fun to think that you've made it through 13 holes at maybe +1 or +2 and then you really have to elevate your game coming in to post a good score. 

I will also say that in match play on my home course, I tend to press to try and end the match on 15 or 16 (probably erroneously in terms of strategy) just to avoid having to play 17 and 18 - particularly if it is a close match in terms of handicaps because 17 and 18 are two of the 3 hardest holes on the back and thus two holes where my opponent is most likely to get shots.

On the other hand, if there's a rough patch somewhere in the middle of the course, say from 10-15, then it also an interesting proposition to know that you've got a par 5 and an opportunity to reclaim some strokes once through that stretch.  Add in another bit of difficulty that can bite the player if they get too greedy and I think it makes for an even better finish.

I've played both and I can think of examples that I like in both camps.  Maybe that's a lot of what you guys are talking about when you don't let one style of play overrule what the land dictates. 

Tom - Riverfront is I believe the only one of your courses that I have played.  The par 5 18th was always a nice welcome to the end of the round, particularly after the 16th and 17th holes out there - I always felt I had a shot at birdie to finish if I could get the drive in the fairway.  Is Sebonack a similar finish?

[Bill_McBride]

I try to extend the match as far back from the 18th hole in consideration of match play.  I like to think my routings do not favor any particular strength (length, finesse, bailout, putting, etc.) in an unfair way.

Of course, I could never have devised such and awe inspiring, thought-provoking, incredible one-of-a-kind piece of mastery as the "Bear Trap" which Miller and Hicks could not stop talking about all weekend. 

I believe my first golf course out of the chute has a better finish than that garbage. Of course, thats just my humble opinion.

Lester

Lester, you need to learn to loosen up and not hold back! 

[Sean_A]

Matchplay is mostly based on shots.  Any particular design of a hole doesn't effect how a match unfolds or concludes.  The important aspect of a course in matchplay is to get the allocation of shots correct.  With this in mind, the last few and the first few holes should not be low indexes, but this has little bearing on whether they are good or tough holes.  In today's game and in the vast amount of cases, I rally can't see how matchplay or strokeplay should effect the design. 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have done my share of easier 18th holes, but that was on the theory that a birdie finish sells more beers, rather than based on some tourney that would never be played on that particular course.

I can honestly say I have never thought much about how to route for match play.  For either stroke or match play, the match could be over (or effectively over) by the 18th or any hole on the back nine.  Given that randomness, it still seems better just to put in the best 18 holes and let the chips fall where they may.

Now, Ross talked about the 5-3-4 finish for variety. I think a short 4-5-3- long 4 in the last four holes would be ideal, if the land fit.  but then, I think those kind of holes ought to be in almost any sequence of 4 holes, as well.  I do believe that certain types of holes favor certain game strengths, like length, finesse, and accuracy and thus think mixing them up through the round keeps one player from building too big a lead, at least somewhat in theory and results would only be clear over time. 

[Tim Nugent]

I was lucky enough to have Jack Tuthill stay with us when the Tour was in town for the Western back when it was at Butler.  I would listen to the after dinner conversations him and dad would have about how he would set up different courses for Tour play.

What I gleened from him was that a course had to have a natural flow to it.  Too many birdie or bogey holes in a row could become mundane.  Also, Jack was a firm believer in the fact that golf is a betting game and you have to also factor games like Nassau's, where the press is available to the down player/team.  If the finishing holes are too difficult, why would anyone ever press?

When we did The Dunes Club for Mike Keiser,  Mike wanted it to be a match play course.  Jack came up with the idea that there would be no tee markers. You decided on the first tee whether the winner or loser of the previous hole got to choose where to tee off from on the next hole.  Everyone else had 2 club lengths from there.

While I believe that you should allow the land to dictate the holes, the thought of a particularly nasty hole near the finish is one that stays in your head the entire round - just knowing that it's up there and you have to survive it.  I think that's why the 17th at TPC wrecks havoc on guys who can normally put 9 out of 10 balls within 20' circle from 150.  They let that hole get in their head and it festers there all day and by the time they get there it looks farther and smaller than if it were the 4th hole.

The equalizer is having the most amount of options within your hole designs, so that a weaker player isn't shut out  I like to have finishing hole(s) designs where the weaker player has an equal or greater chance at net par, thus forcing the stronger player to play for birdie but have bogey as a strong possibility if he messes up.

Charlie Mahanna (archie from FL) likened a routing to a symphony with strong and soft passages culminating with a cresendo. Not a bad anology.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

Designing for a Nassau game probably makes as much sense as anything I have ever read, esp. for the first example in this thread that will host one tourney and then a million rounds of public golf.

As to hard finishers and the press, I always thought that is how the "Double Secret Chicago Press" got started.  Your opponent never knows if you pressed until you know the results!

[Tim Nugent]

Jeff, you know Jack, he was a pretty smart guy.  Love the CDSP - especially when the dead guys get to press too!

[Jeff_Brauer]

The Chicago Press is kind of like the Chicago vote - early and often!  If done correctly, your opponent can win 18 straight holes and still owe you hundreds of dollars!

[Jason Connor]

History question.

In Tom Doak's book he also points out that 18 was frequently not the toughest or signature hole because historically it often wasn't a part of the game. Matches may be decided by then.  Makes sense.

But while this is true in tournament play, e.g. the US Am, it isn't true for much casual play due to presses.

So that made me ask myself: When was the press invented and / or popularized?  And where?

Thanks for anyone who knows and can share.

[Lester George]

Bill,

You are right,  I need to stop sugar coating it and tell it the way I really feel.

In the case of last weekend though (and not to ramble), I watched half of Saturday and most of Sunday and could not believe what I was hearing.  It was like they were being paid by the Nicklaus PR people by the number of times they could say "Bear Trap"! 

Then to have Jack in the booth to explain how he really thought it it all up and how great it was, PUHLEASE.   I really couldn't buy in.  The fact that all the holes had water, with obliquely opposing greens orientation, with the same wind and redundant bunker positions.  I thought it was really boring.

The fact that some of the better players in the world were struggling with the holes is fine, it is supposed to be hard, but I just don't think the outcome was enhanced by the "Bear Trap" as much as it was reported.

Lester

[Philippe Binette]

It appears to me that having the last hole as your toughest hole could present a problem in match play with handicaps. If your opponent get 2 stroke for the match and one of them is the 18th, he might never get a chance to use his stroke (I can't imagine Merion with 16, 17 and 18)... and if the match come to 18th all square, then the player with the stroke can play safe all the way make bogey and win 10 times out of twenty, square nine times and lose once...

It seems like classic courses have either a victory lap hole where you need to work had to make more than a bogey (for tour players) St. Andrews, Turnberry, Olympic Club... or a real brute where anything is possible, Carnoustie, Oakmont, Merion, Muirfield, Pebble Beach, TPC Sawgrass...

For my part, I like it when a course doesn't finish with its climax, because you can't recover from it... You can always recover from a 6 on the Road hole with 3 well played shot that would give you a birdie at the 18th...

walking to the last green is to me a time to reflect back on the round and enjoy it... It fun to have a hole that could lead subtlely to a 3 or a 5 (on a par 4) not where your faith on the last hole is decided off the tee...

[Adrian_Stiff]

It appears to me that having the last hole as your toughest hole could present a problem in match play with handicaps. If your opponent get 2 stroke for the match and one of them is the 18th, he might never get a chance to use his stroke (I can't imagine Merion with 16, 17 and 18)... and if the match come to 18th all square, then the player with the stroke can play safe all the way make bogey and win 10 times out of twenty, square nine times and lose once...

Philippe- The allocation of strokes is a committee decsion and the R & A have given a guideline where strokes are to be allocated. Pretty much the most important thing the guidelines say, is that the 18th and 17th wont be a low index for those exact reasons you brought up. I dont know the index of the road hole, no doubt someone will make me look stupid and say its 3 or something!