[Tim Gavrich]

I don't like playing a lot of Foursomes because I only end up hitting half the shots I normally would if it were medal or Fourball play.  Is that selfish of me?

[Mike McGuire]

I don't like playing a lot of Foursomes because I only end up hitting half the shots I normally would if it were medal or Fourball play.  Is that selfish of me?

Tim

From your response it sounds like you get to play some foursomes? You are lucky if this is the case. I think its a great format but none of my friends do so I almost never get to play it.

Its just part of the culture for us in the US that we want to play our own ball. Perhaps the USGA prefers this.

[Scott Warren]

Whether I fit into the American golfer stereotype that has apparently ruined golf by trying to keep a score (on every hole unless I'm totally about of it) or not, one fact remains true.  When discussing skill levels at golf, if someone said they played Augusta and shot 80, it would mean a whole lot more to me than if the guy said he won 6 and 5.  In fact, the latter would mean absolutely nothing to me.

But at least with 6 and 5 I would be interested to hear how the key holes were decided, and not bored by a description of each of those 80 strokes.

"And then I won the hole by tapping in for a 9 on 11 to go 4 up."

Yep, way more interesting........

There's a great cartoon in the locker room at Deal of the pro asking a golfer who is walking off the 18th how his match was and the golfer replies: "Ooh it was a great match, back-and-forth all day, then he sprung a 7 on me down the last to win 1up."

[DMoriarty]

As Brent Hutto indicated above, the problem relates to the architecture.  Courses designed for stroke play are generally less interesting and less fun. 

For a golf course to provide an accurate measure of ability, then it must produce fairness and predictable results, and "fair and predictable" often equates to boring.  The same arguments against match play can be made against much of great architecture: How am I supposed to get an accurate assessment of my ability if my nearly perfect golf shot ends up in a bunker or at the bottom of a 40 foot grass swale?   

C.B. Macdonald wrote that courses should be designed for match play not medal play, and his courses were so designed.   I mention this because the ostensible basis for one of the few early criticisms of NGLA was that, at the 1912 Founder's Tournament, a few top players (Harry Hilton and Norman Hunter) shot in the high 80s.  (In reality, Travis may have had a sudden change of heart because of the Schenectady putter dispute.)  Apparently if the top players couldn't shoot the expected numbers then the course must be too severe or otherwise flawed.   Scores were being used to determine whether the architecture was sound. 

Ironically, NGLA's Founder's tournament was actually decided by matchplay-- four matches over two days.  These scores likely came from the preliminary medal play round to set the flights of sixteen for the matchplay.   Judging from the numbers and skill level of participants over the years, most of the top players disagreed with Travis.   In 1916 the field was so deep that there were four former National Champions who could quality no higher than the sixth sixteen. 

So if not by medal play, how should we measure ourselves against other golfers?   "By height."
____________________________________________________________________________________

As a self-appointed president of the Card and Pencil Society, those who can play medal and keep score; those who can't put the ball in their pockets and wax poetically about design intent, the highest order of strategy, and how they're just having fun playing a few holes decently while not finishing several of the others.   

I'll volunteer for your Vice Chairman.Sometimes I think "architecture appreciation" is the last refuge for the hack on the website.

If you're not keeping score,you're just out for a walk in the park.

Lou and JM.    Interesting theory.   

Two of the the four legs of Bobby Jones' Grand Slam were match play, weren't they?

[DMoriarty]

Mike McGuire:

That is a great quote from John Low.

Bill M. had a quote from Dr. MacKenzie railing against the "card and pencil" spirit, but attributed it to The Spirit of St. Andrews.  A different quote about the "card and pencil" spirit was actually in his first book in 1920.  I had always thought it was the first quote on the subject, and didn't realize that John Low had beaten him to it, although not with the exact verbiage.

Tom, is this the MacKenzie quote from 1920?

The majority of amateurs are sportsmen, and they welcome anything that increases the sporting element of the game. There are, on the other hand, others, including some of our best players, who look upon golf in the " card and pencil" spirit, and view with resentment anything that has stopped their steady series of threes and fours.

I think the railing goes back a bit further, to when the English took up the game in great masses.  Apparently the English had a taste for handicapped medal competitions, and the Scottish thought this the root of their insistence on keeping score.   I think I have seen earlier descriptions, but offhand I have two descriptions by Whigham, the first from 1897:

Tournaments and sweepstakes were matters of weekly occurrence; a system of handicapping was instituted, and the young golfer was chiefly engaged not so much in improving his game as in defeating the vigilance of the green-committee; nor was it at all rare to find a veritable duffer in possession of many valuable trophies, any one of which would have bought up all the medals in the keeping of the best first-class player in Scotland.  It can hardly be wondered, then, that the term " English golfer " became one of reproach upon the Northern courses. The pilgrims from the South were, in fact, a terrible nuisance. They had no respect for the sacred traditions of the game; they appeared on the classic heath of St. Andrews adorned in flaring "blazers," which filled the mind of the orthodox Scot with loathing; they never played a match, but toiled round the links with pencil and card, intent on deceiving themselves into the belief that they were daily lowering their record. A famous old caddie at North Berwick expressed the general feeling of his outspoken class when he pointed to one of these misguided individuals busily engaged with his card on one of the putting-greens, utterly oblivious to the fact that he was delaying the field while he worked in the higher branches of arithmetic, and remarked in a loud tone of contempt to one of his party, "D'ye see yon man ? D'ye ken the best club in his set — it's his pencil."

Whigham again, this time in 1910, with another humorous anecdote:
Another pernicious habit is the counting of strokes. Time was when no one ever had a handicap and cups were unknown. An annual medal round was sufficient for all the pot-hunting proclivities which even the best golfers sometimes hold concealed. In those days if you asked how such and such a one played, the answer was not "his metropolitan handicap is six," but "Laidlay can give him a third," or "he beat Horace Hutchinson with a half." Sometimes it is a dangerous question to ask of a Scotch caddie, as for example:
"How does Captain Stewart play?"
"Captain Stewart? He canna' play a damn."
"How much shall I give him?"
"You ? You canna' give him onneything."
. . . . The Scotch caddie had, and still has, the most supreme contempt for the golfer who goes around the links with score card and pencil. Old Crawford's saying is immortal. [Whigham then tells same anecdote about the pencil being the English golfer's best club.]

There is reason for this attitude, for the real game of golf is played by holes and not by score. It is the play by holes that all the elements which make the game so human come in. . .

[Mark Chaplin]

Scott - reminds me of being 2 down with 3 to play playing foursomes, Stuart Dale and I finished 7-6-7 to win on the last, yet against the Artisans I was 2 up with 3 to play finished 5-4-5 to lose on the last!

I've played about 50 rounds this year and held a pencil twice.

[Mark Pearce]

Scott - reminds me of being 2 down with 3 to play playing foursomes, Stuart Dale and I finished 7-6-7 to win on the last, yet against the Artisans I was 2 up with 3 to play finished 5-4-5 to lose on the last!

I've played about 50 rounds this year and held a pencil twice.

So that's how you maintain a 12 handicap!  Sadly, that will now be an inactive handicap, if you really haveonly played two medals.

[Mark Chaplin]

I know may have to find a Dec stapleford, either that or submit 3 cards for a 15 next year!!

[Jud_T]

DM-
Great stuff. Now we know who all the "English golfers" are on this site! I may have to co-opt some of that for my byline!

[Lou_Duran]

David M,

To each his own.  I've known a fair number of very good American golfers and I can't remember ever hearing one offer the opiniion that match play was the prefered form of competition.  I've played with far more less able golfers, and outside of this site, I don't think I've ever heard of the notion of going out to the course for a semi-formal round and not keep a score.  There must be a reason why the vast majority of competitions require marking a score on each hole, and for Mr. Jones to have created his own Masters tournament under this format.

BTW, I've done better in match play format than medal most of my life.  And it is true that most of the play at the club level is match.  In our own large groups in the past, we played some sort of Nassau, but we also had a low medal pot.  Less than half of the group typiclally would participate in this one, though everyone kept their own medal scores.  All the clubs I've been a member of have had match and medal play club championships, but only the medal tournament winner was considered the club champion.

I suppose all those anal retentive, unimaginative card and pencil types have the system rigged.  Might there be a savior in the wings  near ready to remove the suffocating corset from modern golf course architecture and redeem the golfing world?   I can't wait.

[tlavin]

Played a fourball at Muirfield once, took 5 hours.

The afternoon foursomes took 3 hours and was a lot more fun.

I wish we played foursomes around here. Be  nice to walk into the grill room and someone asks "how was the match" instead of "what did you shoot"

That would be a welcome cultural shift here in the States.  It would be especially welcome in junior golf, where the focus on scores drives many kids away from the game.

[Jud_T]

Terry-

Couldn't agree more.  My kid's one of 'em....

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Question for Lou Duran.
Would the Ryder Cup be more compelling in your opinion if they went to a medal match play format?
For example in singles, Woods shoots 69, Garcia shoots 71, Woods wins.
Same for fourball and foursomes?

Good point on the Masters.  I would love to have heard Jones' thoughts on medal or match play for the event.  I think mostly he was trying to draw attention to the facility and was hoping it would be a friendly exhibition of top notch players of the day.

[DMoriarty]

David M,

To each his own.  I've known a fair number of very good American golfers and I can't remember ever hearing one offer the opiniion that match play was the prefered form of competition.  I've played with far more less able golfers, and outside of this site, I don't think I've ever heard of the notion of going out to the course for a semi-formal round and not keep a score.  There must be a reason why the vast majority of competitions require marking a score on each hole, and for Mr. Jones to have created his own Masters tournament under this format.

There are many reasons why competitions are held as stroke play, some of them practical, others despicable.   Among the practical is that it is a logistical nightmare to run a large matchplay event for a large field over a short time, especially at the pace that todays card and pencil golfers play.  One can barely finish a round a day, and a matchplay tournament would require multiple rounds.  Among the despicable is television and the golfing public are only interested when their heroes are involved, and no one would watch a match play major if Tiger lost early.    

Plus, Lou, golf at its best is not a tournament game.   As Hutchinson said in 1895 (don't get too excited Melvyn) "The real game of golf consists, as we have said, in match play—in play by holes. The other is but a device."

[Bill_McBride]

Played a fourball at Muirfield once, took 5 hours.

The afternoon foursomes took 3 hours and was a lot more fun.

I wish we played foursomes around here. Be  nice to walk into the grill room and someone asks "how was the match" instead of "what did you shoot"

Mike, the fun of the afternoon round is enhanced by the libations at lunch, no?

[Jud_T]

I just played today and didn't keep score for probably the first time in my life.  It was very liberating, and I believe not keeping score actually allowed me to play better on the back side and win the match.  I have only a vague idea what my medal score was and I really could care less! I'm really starting to warm up to the UK handicap concept...Question...If you join a club in the UK, can you post a score from a tournament in the states? I'm assuming not as we don't have a Scratch Score...

[Jason Topp]

I consider match play more fun.

I also consider it a crutch for incompetence.

You only find out how well you actually play when the potential exists for a big score on every hole.

[Ronald Montesano]

I golf for score...I have no interest in going head-to-head with friend nor foe to determine a winner.

I will risk score on all occasions to pull off heroic shots.

I will risk score on all occasions to attempt shots that utilize the carom, the bounce, and spin.

I golf to improve my swing.  As I have remarked on many occasions to partners, you can only hit the shot; the result is indebted to other influences.

Golf for me is three holes of introduction, then a reassessment.  If my score is at par, I will strive for a number.  If my score is not at par, chances are I know the reasons and will strive to resolve them over the remaining holes.

I'll counter Donal's argument about the match being dependent on the handicap.  Two sentient beings can determine, after three to six holes, if the match is a worthy one.  If player Nougat is much stronger than player Fluff, an adjustment will be made for the final dozen holes.  That said, I like Donal's arguments on GCA.

[Jud_T]

Jason,

So you'd rather let one 3-putt ruin your entire day? Let's face it, all the guys on here who love lording it over us hackers while better players, really aren't all that.  Unless you are playing to a +3 or better, you don't really have a snowball's chance in hell of winning much of anything other than your club championship, which frankly should be contested at match play anyway!  Otherwise we're just measuring our d*cks, which if that's how you roll well, hey, whatever gets you through the night dude....

[Mark_Fine]

Jud,
Just because you didn't "write down" your scores or can't remember your scores doesn't mean you didn't keep score.  I assume you played all the holes didn't you and no one else hit a shot for you.  

I think the only real thing we are arguing about here is whether one "finishes out every hole".  If they do, who cares whether they are writing down a score or not or whether it is called match play or medal play.  After 18 holes, if one wanted to count (or could remember) all their shots, the total number of shots would be the same!  

One other thing I will say is that if I am going to play a great golf course and only get one chance to play it, I want to play every hole and that means finishing each one as well  Whether I bother to post an 18 hole total is another matter.

Furthermore, by definition, "match play" means a competition.  Golf is much more than just about competing with an opponent.  Last I checked it is possible to play golf by oneself.
Mark

[DMoriarty]

Another early opinion lamenting the "eternal and cursed card and pencil in the hands of the members."   

[Ronald Montesano]

Time to pile on Jud.  Let's examine his signature:  "There is reason for this attitude, for the real game of golf is played by holes and not by score. It is the play by holes that all the elements which make the game so human come in. . ."

Quite convenient that you leave off exactly what those "elements" that make the game so "human" are.  Care to elaborate?  I'm certain  I can play devil's advocate and apply these "elements" to medal play.

[Jud_T]

Ronald,

If you actually read the entire post you'd realize that I just poached this from DMoriarty's post from Whigham from 1910! I knew this would bring you guys out of the woodwork. I should drink good wine more often!

[Jud_T]

Mark,

You have a point.  I do enjoy playing by myself on occasion..Perhaps this is the appropriate place to relegate medal play to...

[Ronald Montesano]

Nice tap dance, Jud, but you'll have to do better than that, because A) I don't care what you scramble, poach or fry; B)  "You guys" is a cop-out; and C) you haven't answered my questions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()