Match vs. Medal, why not both?

[Mark_Fine]

When I think of a great "match play" course, I generally think of layouts that have lots of risk/reward.  There are daring carries, corners and/or hazards that can be challenged setting up easier angles of approach, severe penalties for wayward shots, but birdie opportunities rewarded for the well executed aggressive plays.  Such interest and strategy are features of great "match play" courses!  

But aren't these also the same features of great "medal play" courses?  Judging by many of the comments I've read on other posts, you'd think they are not!  Maybe some people are too hung up on fairness (what ever that is)!  And for some reason they down grade (or upgrade) their opinion of a course depending on what game is being played on it?  Why is that?

Granted, there is a very different mentality playing match play vs. medal play.  But does the quality of the course change as well??

[Dave_Miller]

Mark:
To your point the quality of the course, in my opinion, should not change.

Perhaps the perception comes from the fact that the old courses were designed at a time when match play was really the only game in town.  

The severe penalties in the heather and fescue and deep bunkers of the Scottish links courses penalized only on that hole and did not have the same impact a big number would have on a round or even an entire tournament in medal play.

Perhaps this is where the concept of fairness, which you allude to,  comes from.  I don't know it's just a thought.  But given the severity of the penalties on some of these courses it may have been they were designed with match play in mind.

Good to see you last week at the dinner.

Best

Dave

[TEPaul]

Mark:

If by this question and this thread you're proposing or suggesting combining medal (stroke) and match play, I would ask you to look at my post of today to Craig on the "Open Boredom" thread.

I thought most everyone understood it but perhaps not that match and medal play are clearly separate and distinct formats in golf and the regulatory bodies and the rules of the game definitely mean to keep them that way by never combining them or the perception of them in fact, practice or theory!

The reasons for this are extremely fundamental to golf and are evidenced in the rules of golf under Rule 33-1 (the Committee).

To tamper with those fundamentally different and distinct formats and time tested procedures and the reasons for them would be a huge mistake in my mind and the minds of many others I know of!

[Dave_Miller]

TEPaul:

Not sure I followed what you are saying to Mark.  

I took his post to mean that he feels there is a real difference in the quality of the courses played for match play events vs medal play events.  

I did not sense that he was talking about combining Match and Medal play and the elements as they are very distinct.  But does there have to be a difference in the courses.

Best

Dave

[JWalker]

Mark,
        To my mind a great golf course has strategy with many options and penal consequences for the riskiest option. Match play is what I prefer and better utilizes these features. I know it is not cost effective and you can have more players in a madal play tournament and finish it quicker. In a medal play pro tournament, like this years open, these guys are hitting 4I off the tee and 4I to the front or middle of the greens to ensure par ( if you put a 4I in my hands to a green, I am liable to score anything) and not shoot themselves out of the tournament. This forgoes  a lot of the strategy that the architect intended. That is what makes these tournaments boring to watch (until it all comes to bear on the back nine on sunday, thats when it isn't so boring). The greatest medal play tournament I ever saw was the battle between Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson at the 1977 open. It smelled strangely like match play.
      I ask the following question as a student. What is a specific example of a great medal play course? If I were pressed for an answer I would pick some RTJ course.
      As for the format of a playoff with 4 players ( 1 group or 2) I may be off my rocker but how about < than 3 players 4 hole aggregate, all the players in the same group. More than 3 sudden death, all players in the same group.

[Mark_Fine]

My question is about the quality of the golf course only!  Why do some people's opinions of a course change depending on whether the format is match play vs. medal play??  

Mark

[Andy Hodson]

I think the Ocean course at Kiawah answers that questions. Great match play course, but an absolute son of a bitch stroke play course.

[TEPaul]

Dave Miller and Mark:

You're right, I misread what you were asking or saying on this thread when I responded in that first post. You obviously aren't talking about actually combining stroke and match play simultaneously as I thought--I guess the topic title of the thread threw me off--sorry.

[TEPaul]

But without question the course that combines exciting aspects of both match and stroke play better than any other course I know of--far better actually--is Pine Valley. No wonder because of it it's always been so highly considered.

[Mark_Fine]

But Tom, is there a difference and if so, why??

[D Moriarty]

Tom:

Was there a time before the onslaught of technology that Pine Valley was a much better match play course than a stroke play course?

[Paul Richards]

PV was probably an excellent medal-play course up until the very recent past, but it would still make a wonderful match-play course, even for the big boys!

[JWalker]

Mark,
       To be honest I had trouble understanding what you were asking and took the opportunity to get some stuff off my chest. Now that I understand it, it is a terrifc question. Hod cites the ocean course at Kiawah as being a great match play course. I presume because of the strategy and many options. He also says it is a great medal play course. Hod is this because the course can defend itself against par? If my assumptions are correct then Pebble and Spyglass are in there as well. What about a course like Rustic Canyon, possbly the most fun and strategic course I have ever played. Obviously a great venue for match play. I dare say that it would not defend par very well against the Big Boys. Should I be making a distinction. I don't think so. Rustic Canyon loses none of it's allure because the pros can go low on it. Mark, what do you think?

[TEPaul]

Mark:

If I'm understanding your question I think courses that are good in both match and medal play are the courses that have always been recognized as the great ones and high caliber architecture.

The ones I know I would list would be:

Pine Valley
Pebble
Oakmont
Merion
Huntingdon Valley
Seminole
Shinnecock
Riviera

Some others that are older and shorter are still great match play courses and could be interesting medal play courses too if their pars were reduced. That might include NGLA, Cypress and GCGC! The latter aspect is an elasticity that's very interesting transitioning into today's golf world for the better player.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

The Ocean Course can only defend itself against par if the wind is blowing or it's set up LONG!  During the 1997 World Cup, they were shooting the lights out.  I believe Alex Cejka of Germany shot a 63 out there and there were a bunch of 64s(although the course was only set up at about 6,800 yards, about 1,200 short of what it can be set up at).  Without wind, players can pick the best sides of the fairway to get the favorable angle into the greens.  With the wind, even hitting the fairways can be a challenge.  It should be interesting to see how it's set up for the 2003 EMC World Cup.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike;

I thought the Ocean Course had back tees that could be set up at extreme lengths, somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,500+.   Am I mistaken?  

I'm planning to come down in September to test it myself, but 6,800 sounds fine by me

[ralph@hickorygolf.com]

The question of whether or not courses (pre-1930) were designed (or redesigned) for match or medal is one I have been asking the opinion of architects as I have meet them for the past few years. Mostly it has been in reference to the "top 10" of Scottish links. If you have ever followed some of the members matches at North Berwick I think you will know what I mean.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

I've played it from just over 8,000 and shot a 99 and was happy to have it.  I couldn't even reach the fairway on two holes...  Some of the forecaddies say that if you play it back, all the way back on every hole, it comes out to close to 8,100 yards.  When it reopens, I'm going to take one of our Bushnell range finders and find out for sure the total distance...

[THuckaby2]

8100 yards, at a reputable course... golf armageddon has arrived.  

TH

[Joe Hancock]

And thats 8100 at sea level....UGH! I don't remember what length I played Kiawah at, but I remember my 88 feeling an awful lot like a 75! I thought I played good, added it up, and it's a smooth 88. Is that what golf will feel like after my 80th birthday, assuming I reach that milestone?

Joe

[Willie_Dow]

Funny what comes out of a comment!

But, to go back to Muirfield, and the playoff, I suggested a match play format would be exciting to watch on TV.

We are now into the Rules of Golf, where they say that they are incompatible!

Are the rules getting more complicated than the fun of the competition, and the excitement of watching the event?

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Pete Dye is adamant that it is never meant to be played at that length.  He has some of those back tees well hidden so the average player isn't tempted to go back and give them a try.  It's only to give options for course setup depending on wind strength and direction...

[THuckaby2]

Understood, Mike - and that makes very good sense.  Let's just hope some creative marketing folks at Kiawah don't go "trumpeting" those tees and that total distance.... you hear me?  

TH

[TEPaul]

MikeV:

Apparently at Kiawah, Pete took the idea of "elasticity" to the absolute extreme.

Willie Dow:

Fortunately or unfortunately the rules making bodies and the tournament committees do take the distinction between match play and stroke play very seriously and they always have. There's definitely never been an instance of a stroke play tournament reverting to an actual match play format for a playoff that I've ever heard of.

I think they also would logically feel that a stroke play playoff that is designed to have some kind of match play flavor to it for fun and interest is somewhat illogical too.

I do understand what some are saying on here that it could be advantageous for some players to play face to face so they can keep an eye on their "fellow competitors" like match play "opponents" logically must since they have to play together but that's not the way the tournament proper was anyway and presumbly the playoff competitors did just fine in that without necessarily playing face to face with the playoff competitors or almost everyone else in the tournament!

But to play something like the British Open playoff and its four hole aggregate score format psychologically or in theory like a match play format would seem illogical in prinicple anyway, particularly on a course that can be as penal as Muirfield.

Think of it, one competitor could actually win a match play four hole format playoff and lose it in an aggregate score format (stroke play) playoff!

Where would that leave the playoff, the competitors and the tournament? Levet might say to Ernie: "Look here Ernie, you may think you won the Claret jug, because you shot 16 and I shot 21 and you may have been approaching this in a stroke play mode but I was approaching it in a match play mode and although I happened to take more strokes than you I actually beat you one up!!

I really can see why they insist of keeping stroke play tournaments just stroke play in every way, including their playoffs, regardless of the groupings!

Ralph@hickory:

That's a most interesting question about pre 1930 courses and what they were designed for most, match or stroke play.

Clearly more for match play (simply because there was NOT so much stroke play back then) but I have a sneaking suspicion that this whole idea of "Championship" style courses that was sort of an American phenomenon (and started as early as PVGC) and was controversial with many Europeans and European architects may have STARTED the popularity of designing for more stroke than match play.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

Tom--

No intention to...  We have enough out here to protect par without going to "lengths..."