How much different would golf course architecture be if

[Patrick_Mucci]

medal play was abandoned/prohibiited ?

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I think golf courses would be VERY different if there was no such thing as stroke play.

The two major differences would be:

a)  The nature of hazards would be much more rugged, and
b)  The level of conditioning would be less important and presumably less costly.  I wonder if golf courses would have become backyards for housing estates at all, in these circumstances?

One could also argue that golf might be less popular in America, since you wouldn't have a game unless you had an opponent.  But, hell, maybe then the American golf culture would be more like the Scots golf culture ... and that would be a thing of beauty.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick:

I think golf courses would be VERY different if there was no such thing as stroke play.

...

In what ways?

Would courses have more difficult holes, because a lost hole is only a small fraction of a match?
Would recovery shots be more or less enabled?
others?

[Niall C]

I suspect what Patrick was getting at was whether courses would be more strategic if all there was was matchplay rather than strokeplay (Patrick, I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) and Tom D suggests that courses would be less manicured due presumably to not having the need to count score (Tom correct me if I'm wrong).

While I would like to agree to the former suggestion, I think you would have still have had the old divisions between the "pro golfer" architects with their typically penal architecture and the more strategic designs of the "enlightened" amateurs, and as ever the question of fairness would have been in the mix as well.

With regards to Tom's suggestion on maitenance I'm not sure I see the correlation between strokeplay and conditioning (if that is indeed Tom's argument) as surely the same argument would exist for matchplay where the number of strokes taken are important also.

All in all I'm not sure there would be any change to the nature of golf courses, apart from maybe length (why worry about lengthening courses when no-one is counting relative to par ?) but I would think that the average round would be quicker.

Niall

[BCrosby]

Good question. Courses would be very different. In mostly good ways.

The urge to eliminate bad luck, fluke, unpredictablility etc. by way of highly manicured courses would be reduced if marking down a score is not required. Indeed, what would count in the US as a 'beautiful' course might align more with UK standards.

There would be more holes at odd yardages if stroke play was eliminated.

But most importantly the consequences of strategic choices could be jacked up by way of more severe, catastrophic hazards. If a triple bogey train wreck is no longer a concern - if the worst that can happen is the loss of a hole - why not ratchet up adrenalin levels on shot choices.

All good stuff.

These sorts of counterfactual exercises are an interesting way to parse out historical causation issues. Fun stuff to speculate about.

Bob 
 

[JMEvensky]

But most importantly the consequences of strategic choices could be jacked up by way of more severe, catastrophic hazards. If a triple bogey train wreck is no longer a concern - if the worst that can happen is the loss of a hole - why not ratchet up adrenalin levels on shot choices.

 
 

That's what I was thinking about but couldn't figure out how to say it.You did it better than I ever could have.

If total score no longer matters,why not emphasize the pucker factor?The only downside might be that hazards would become so prevalent that holes start getting halved in X.

[Joe Bausch]

Would an architect's job be more difficult or easier if only match play existed?  Would routing a course be simpler, for example?

[BCrosby]

JME -

Total sphincter lock down. It would become an architectural measuring rod.    The jokes write themselves.

Bob

[JMEvensky]

JME -

Total sphincter lock down. It would become an architectural measuring rod.    The jokes write themselves.

Bob

Sphincter factor would be the new slope.Hey,they do write themselves.

We should probably refrain from any more of these--unless you've got a really good one.

[Brian Freeman]

Fewer 450+ yard par 4 18th holes, plus routing to have the best holes in the #12-16 range.  That alone would be a big change.

[A.G._Crockett]

To be VERY practical and specific, more par threes to finish nines?  This would minimize strokes being given on holes that would decide a close match, a feature often seen (as we all know) on Ross courses. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Further, it occurs to me that we might begin to see a clearer difference between the stroke play handicap of a hole and the match play handicap of a hole, which, until a couple of years ago I didn't even know existed and which most courses don't use.

[Chris Cupit]

Further, it occurs to me that we might begin to see a clearer difference between the stroke play handicap of a hole and the match play handicap of a hole, which, until a couple of years ago I didn't even know existed and which most courses don't use.

A.G.
I am fairly familiar with the USGA Handicap System and I am not exactly sure what you are talking about and so I just briefly thumbed through the manual/decision book.  Are you referring to the allocation of strokes?  I thought that might be it and the closest thing I see is in section 17-5 where it states: "It may be appropriate to devlop a separate allocation based on difficulty relative to par (something they normally advise against) for four-ball stroke play, best-ball-of-four stroke play, and Stableford competitons."  If I am on the right track I would agree with you that virtually no club goes to the trouble of doing this for those stroke play specific events.

One thing we have done is create a separate stroke allocation chart for our senior tees as given the differences in yardages from the regular tees, there were some holes where the stroke allocations made no sense.  But that is a different issue than what you bring up.

In general I would LOVE to see way more match play and I would love to see clubs mandate and set aside some time for foursome play.  Because it is so much faster, you have to make everyone play the same game pretty much.  I'd love to rip up the pencil and card mentality and encourage more partner events that help create and build genuine cameraderie within a club.

[paul cowley]

good post chris!

[A.G._Crockett]

Further, it occurs to me that we might begin to see a clearer difference between the stroke play handicap of a hole and the match play handicap of a hole, which, until a couple of years ago I didn't even know existed and which most courses don't use.

A.G.
I am fairly familiar with the USGA Handicap System and I am not exactly sure what you are talking about and so I just briefly thumbed through the manual/decision book.  Are you referring to the allocation of strokes?  I thought that might be it and the closest thing I see is in section 17-5 where it states: "It may be appropriate to devlop a separate allocation based on difficulty relative to par (something they normally advise against) for four-ball stroke play, best-ball-of-four stroke play, and Stableford competitons."  If I am on the right track I would agree with you that virtually no club goes to the trouble of doing this for those stroke play specific events.

One thing we have done is create a separate stroke allocation chart for our senior tees as given the differences in yardages from the regular tees, there were some holes where the stroke allocations made no sense.  But that is a different issue than what you bring up.

In general I would LOVE to see way more match play and I would love to see clubs mandate and set aside some time for foursome play.  Because it is so much faster, you have to make everyone play the same game pretty much.  I'd love to rip up the pencil and card mentality and encourage more partner events that help create and build genuine cameraderie within a club.

Chris,
I suppose that is what I am referring to; I started a thread here a year ago about Achasta having the two sets of handicaps on their scorecard, which was the first time (and still the only time) that I had ever seen it.  When I can find the thread and paste a link to it I'll do it, but at least a few others had seen it done elsewhere.

Achasta's hole handicaps are different on each hole, sometimes radically so, and in ways that seem very hard to account for.

[BCrosby]

Joe -

I think that eliminating medal play would afford an architect much more design freedom. In terms of both the type and severity of the features he might use. Designs would be more imaginative and dramatic.  And ultimately, more fun to play. We are talking about an anti- US Open type course. The original design for ANGC comes to mind as an example.

Chris -

Your comment about a relationship between match play and club comaraderie is interesting. I think that's right. There is a different relationship with your competitor when it is one on one or two on two rather than your score against an anonomous, amorphous field. Hidden a bit further behind that curtain are older, historical divisions between amateurs (who preferred match play, becasue of the extra-athletic aspects involved) and pros (who preferred medal play as the best test of athletic skill). 

Bob

[Adam Clayman]

The game would speed up tremendously.

Tom D. You would still keep a score and be able to play against the course. No?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Do you think there'd be a revitalization of "quirk" ?

And, even with higher green speeds, would more radical contours be in vogue ?