Match play courses vs. medal play courses

[Garland Bayley]

... the bulk of a match play round at Liberty National would be spent avoiding ponds and creeks. Is this not the case in a medal play round? ...

If you go in a pond in match play, it likely will affect 1/18 of your score. If you go in a pond in medal play, it will likely affect 1/72 of your score.

[Brent Hutto]

... the bulk of a match play round at Liberty National would be spent avoiding ponds and creeks. Is this not the case in a medal play round? ...

If you go in a pond in match play, it likely will affect 1/18 of your score. If you go in a pond in medal play, it will likely affect 1/72 of your score.

People who dislike stroke play aren't worried about the two strokes they lose from the first ball in the pond. They're worried about the effect on their score of the third and fourth ball they hit into that same pond...when in match play they'd long since be in their pocket and proceeding to the next hole.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is this a real thing? Are some courses actually "better" for match play than stroke play, or vice versa? If so, why?

Jason,

I don't know if there's such a thing as a "bad" match play course, but, my definition of a "bad" medal play course is a course where you're just one swing away from an X, and that swing can occur on an abundance of holes.

[Brent Hutto]

Is this a real thing? Are some courses actually "better" for match play than stroke play, or vice versa? If so, why?

Jason,

I don't know if there's such a thing as a "bad" match play course, but, my definition of a "bad" medal play course is a course where you're just one swing away from an X, and that swing can occur on an abundance of holes.

Exactly the point. Being a "bad" medal play course by this definition does not necessarily mean it will be a "good" match play course. But sometimes match play minimizes the "badness" to a certain extent.

[Mark McKeever]

Hi,

The difference in Match Play/Medal Courses is that:

A Medal Play course more rewards Skill and higher golf ability..it is marked by penal and heroic elements; it is longer, narrower, is more defined, has more water carries, OB, faster greens, more challenging bunkers, deeper rough. It will be harder for a 20 HCP, to beat a 12, a 10 a 5, a 5 and a scratch and so forth (whether at "net medal-stroke play" or as the strokes fall on a card in a match).  Medal Play courses are usually humorless, even if a feast for the golf eye.

A Match Play course more rewards Fortune and more levels the playing field between competitors...it is marked by strategic options that mitigate its penal features and enhance the heroic ones; it is shorter, wider, has more blind shots, is more vague, has more unpredictable ground movement, more audacious contours around the green target.  The elements that make it so are many times called "goofy," and unfair, almost always by the better golfer(s).

It is however, subjective (the term itself), and I have never heard architects state it or plan for it; but it ends up becoming realized via the wishes of the client-builder and what designs/reputation that client has in mind for it. Is that client thinking of state tournaments and PGA events and making a Top 100 list to attract revenue...or is he thinking of his group of familiars and their antecedents, with all their flaws, playing a morning match for $50, for the next 100 years?

In the end a pleasing course is a pleasing course and you can be thrilled, amused and stimulated by a round on either, but in terms of the competition in golf's game purposes, the medal course will favor the better, more accomplished player whereas the match play course will more level the playing field between competitors.

cheers

vk

+1

No.  It's not a real thing.  Medal play and the associated concept of "fairness" are artificial constructs and the equivalent of organized religion- a palliative for the masses.

 Bayonne GC is hardly long (6500-6712 from most frequently played tees), frequently buffeted by winds, links-like and wrought with awkward recovery shots and only a few water hazards. Ideal for matches, shots left just short of the greens on windy days often yield better scores than heroic longer ones. Bayonne presents a myriad of options, ground and air and while it's fairway corridors aren't especially wide, OB requires a considerable miss.



  Cheers

As much as I hate agreeing with Mr. Lapper, Bayonne is an excellent representation of an ideal match play course.  When the winds are up and the course is firm, the risk reward element out there increases substantially.  Which to me makes for an exciting match, but a potential massacre for stroke play.

Mark

[Steve Lapper]

Mark,

   Thanks for the (albeit begrudgingly ) support. I was waiting for someone to pipe in who's played Bayonne before (and not just showered there! )

  Jason,

   Your question(s) are perplexing. Why are short-of-the green recoveries a good thing in match v. medal?? Isn't that reasonably self-explanatory? More frequently (unless you possess a tour-level short game) they lead to an extra stroke....the nemesis of medal play. An up and down from off the green, when hit first creates pressure on a competitor to make a lengthy putt for a win or to two-putt for a half. Of course it's a good thing on any course to have more options and interest and Bayonne is most definitely a superior course to LN in my opinion. An accommodation of shots short of the green isn't a bad thing in medal play, but it doesn't do anything to mitigate the advantage of the longer hitter that might otherwise shrink when recoveries from the other three sides of the green are more penal.

  Your last statement & question re: ponds, creeks and OB dramatically affect one's medal play round far more as a missed shot carries a substantially greater penalty (i.e. the 2nd/3rd missed carry of a water hazard or an OB). Liberty isn't my cup-of-tea, but some other folks like it plenty. My larger point is simple.....they are wonderful examples of courses that highlight the differences design and location make for match v. medal play. If you, Ally, or Sean want to believe and suggest I'm trying hard to say or think something else, please send me your CVs so I can forward them to the CIA for opportunities on their interrogation teams

[Brent Hutto]

An accommodation of shots short of the green isn't a bad thing in medal play, but it doesn't do anything to mitigate the advantage of the longer hitter that might other shrink when recoveries from the other three sides of the green are more penal.

Did I misread your meaning or did you just shift gears?

You started out talking about courses better suited to match play than to stroke play. But the quoted statement seems to be about courses that give the shorter hitter his best chance of beating the longer hitter.

In my opinion "mitigat[ing] the advantage of the longer hitter" is no part of a course architect's design brief.

[Steve Lapper]

An accommodation of shots short of the green isn't a bad thing in medal play, but it doesn't do anything to mitigate the advantage of the longer hitter that might other shrink when recoveries from the other three sides of the green are more penal.

Did I misread your meaning or did you just shift gears?

You started out talking about courses better suited to match play than to stroke play. But the quoted statement seems to be about courses that give the shorter hitter his best chance of beating the longer hitter.

In my opinion "mitigat[ing] the advantage of the longer hitter" is no part of a course architect's design brief.

Match play is hardly played between identically skilled players. A longer hitter has an edge on a longer course and loses that edge on a shorter course when presented with well-placed fairway hazards and pinch points. A shorter, more reliably accurate, hitter may well lay-up on longer par 4's when they expect their longer-hitting competitor to go for the green. As I get older, my game leans to the shorter-side and when I play a young bomber in match play I certainly lay-up and rely on my short-game to lessen the edge of length. At Bayonne, most sides and backs of the greens present very difficult recoveries, while accommodating the fronts.

I would differ with you on the course architects design brief. Some owner-developers (i.e. Mike Keiser, Ric Kayne, Mosaic, K. Bakst) choose their architects based on their skills creating options and interest. Others went for aesthetics and degrees of difficulty. The former usually work better for match play and worry less about defending par. The latter care more about defending against lower scores. Just ask Donald Trump which he prefers?

[Brent Hutto]

Match play is hardly played between identically skilled players.

Match play

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Dustin Johnson prefers courses with 315 yard carries over water off the tee..

JB Holmes prefers courses where a fade 6-iron from 240 gives him a short eagle putt.

You prefer courses where longer hitters lose the advantage of the length.

All perfectly cromulent preferences. Entirely understandable. None of that is match play vs. stroke play, though.

[Jason Thurman]

Steve, if you're perplexed by the questions I'm asking it's because you don't understand the topic. Being able to answer them is inherent to being able to prove that your take on Bayonne and Liberty National is correct. The original post specifically asks whether there are courses that are "actually 'better' for match play than stroke play, or vice versa." Reading your posts, I don't gather that Bayonne is a better match play course and Liberty National is a better medal play course. Instead, I just gather that Bayonne is a better course and Liberty National isn't very good. I can't imagine that I would enjoy a medal play round at Liberty National more than a medal play round at Bayonne, and being able to prove that one is good for match play while the other is good for medal is crucial to being able to prove the dichotomy between "match play courses" and "medal play courses" exists.

I think you're perplexed because your thesis (and V. Kmetz's, for that matter) isn't very sound. Your explanation of short game options is a perfect example. You begin by stating that, with regards to greenside recoveries:

More frequently (unless you possess a tour-level short game) they lead to an extra stroke....the nemesis of medal play.

It sounds like you're asserting that, more often than not, players who miss a green in medal play will make bogey (the extra stroke). Fair enough, and accurate.

But then you immediately disregard this assertion, beginning with your next sentence:

An up and down from off the green, when hit first creates pressure on a competitor to make a lengthy putt for a win or to two-putt for a half.

Assuming your competitor is on the green in regulation, which I inferred from this sentence, then your statement is incongruent with your previous one. You've just said in your previous sentence that the player who misses the green is unlikely to make par in medal play. Therefore, doesn't it also stand to reason that in match play the same player is also unlikely to get up and down from greenside? If so, then the competitor on the green is under little pressure - a two-putt will win the hole more often than not.

The point is that you haven't made any reasonable argument for why it would be good in match play that "shots left just short of the greens on windy days often yield better scores than heroic longer ones" but not good in medal play. You're simply extolling the virtues of strategic golf course design, and while I love those same virtues, they aren't inherently more suited to match play than medal.

[Jason Thurman]

Is this a real thing? Are some courses actually "better" for match play than stroke play, or vice versa? If so, why?

Jason,

I don't know if there's such a thing as a "bad" match play course, but, my definition of a "bad" medal play course is a course where you're just one swing away from an X, and that swing can occur on an abundance of holes.

I would generally agree with this. My favorite courses tend to flirt with the edge of meeting this definition, but they almost all give some room to navigate around on an off day and keep an X-free medal score together with conservative and wise play. The courses that cross the line work better in match play by my judgment, but not by a wide margin. There are just too many holes with anticlimactic finishes when lost balls, OB, and water are everywhere. Concessions from more than 50 yards away are the Xs of match play.

You've been there and I haven't. Does Pine Valley flirt with the edge of having an abundance of holes where you're one swing from an X? Does it cross the line?

[Josh Tarble]

Jason,
I've thought about this question now for a bit.  At first glance I don't think any course is necessarily better or worse suited for each style.  In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.  I also think a good course is a good course.

After thinking about it, I do think some courses are better suited than others to each format.  I think the best courses of any type are the ones that keep the player on edge throughout.  Courses that can keep the player on edge without losing a ball seem to be better courses for match play...while courses that threaten the player with hazards seem to be better suited for medal play.  One is better for 18 individual matches while another is better for one total match.

As an example I'd put Kinglsey (as everyone else has said) as a great match play course.  The hole is never won until the ball is in the bottom of the cup.  I also think it's on the edge of "fair" (whatever that means) in that even good shots may receive a bad break or bad shots may get a good break.  It requires a good spirit and a good game.

As an example of a great medal play course I'd offer up Wolf Run.  This course is hard, but with really interesting shots and holes.  It's going to challenge you from #1 tee box to #18 green.  I don't think it would be great for match play as one slight miss may mean a dropped ball and lost hole.  However, in stroke play that's just another penalty stroke and you still have to hold it together for your round.  The challenge is really holding your score over a full round.

[Brent Hutto]

I'll one-up friend Jason by saying I love the virtues of strategic design and I strongly prefer match play to medal play.

And I'll even venture that I'm open to the possibility of a course being relatively good for match play while being relatively bad for stroke play. But I'm struggling to think of courses I've personally experienced that embody that possibility. To the extent I think it can happen, it's much more to do with lost balls, forced carries and the like than it does difficult greenside recoveries.

The whole idea of medal play is that salvaging a double bogey from a situation where triple bogey seemed almost certain is EXACTLY the same as salvaging par when bogey seemed assured. The idea of match play is that due to the vagaries of your opponent's play certain shots can be much higher leverage than in medal play, right? It can well be that a par vs. bogey is meaningless and that double vs. triple is worth a full hole instead of one stroke.

Unfortunately my conception of the match play/medal play dichotomy just doesn't match up to any particular set of characteristics I've seen in various golf courses. It comes down to being all about who your opponent is. And that leaves enormous variability in shot-by-shot outcomes that can't really be predicted or accounted for by the course setup. I keep coming back to course that I think would be excellent for match play tending to be courses that I just plain old like better. Anything else would be mere rationalization of those preferences.

[Brent Hutto]

In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement...

[Sven Nilsen]

In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement...

Fundamentally, Josh is right.  We'd all rather make a par than a bogey, and a birdie rather than a par.

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,
I've thought about this question now for a bit.  At first glance I don't think any course is necessarily better or worse suited for each style.  In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.  ...

Josh,

Let me introduce myself. My name is Garland and I don't care one bit what my overall score is in match play.
In fact, the handicap posting season is closed 3 months a year where I play. During that time my friends and I only keep holes won/lost differences and have no idea what medal score we shot. During handicap season the full score is kept only for posting purposes.

[Brent Hutto]

In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement...

Fundamentally, Josh is right.  We'd all rather make a par than a bogey, and a birdie rather than a par.

He said "overall score" which I took to mean something like "85" versus "97" for the round. Not "par" vs. "birdie" for the hole.

I have a fairly short attention span when things are going badly. Once I can no longer make par on a hole, absent any incentive I have a hard time grinding out a putt for bogey or double or whatever. And with my game, that means lots of potentially uninteresting conclusions to holes!

This is why I strongly prefer match play with a second choice being some sort of team game where my team may "need" my bogey to be holed out because a partner is in his pocket or something. I love making a 10-footer for bogey to win a hole almost as much as I love making a 10-footer for birdie to win a hole (almost). But a 10-footer to make bogey so I can write down "5" on my score card on my way to shooting 94 is a much less interesting proposition.

[Garland Bayley]

In general I think match play is a better format but I don't know a single person that honestly does not care about their overall score one bit even in match play.

It's unlikely you and I will ever get a chance to have a game but if we do you'll be able to go back and retract this statement...

Fundamentally, Josh is right.  We'd all rather make a par than a bogey, and a birdie rather than a par.

What does that have to do with "overall score"?

[Steve Lapper]

Jason,

   I'm sorry I don't meet up to your standards of understanding or interpretation. Remind me to apply for a refund and return my degrees. I guess I'll just have to stick to my day job.

  This is exactly why GCA.com continues to deteriorate. I never proposed that my opinion or abilities to understand were superior to others, but instead set out to illustrate the differences at two close-by venues that highlight a match play vs. a medal play course. Only you and your merry band of geniuses are entitled to superior simplification and extrapolation. Congrats!

   Have you ever played either course I cited??? If not, are you qualified to question them? Calling shots from a barcalounger with a keyboard in your hands is no way to go through life.

   Lastly, I'd remind you your question re: Pine Valley is fundamentally flawed. A player there is almost always one swing away from disaster, but very few games on its premises...and even fewer caddies there....allow for Xs. Your ball will be found and you will be asked to play from there.

[Josh Tarble]

Brent and Garland,

I need to learn to not care.  I've heard it does wonder for your score.  I (and everyone I play with) can't get away from the fact that "oh wow, I'm playing well today, 3 over through 15 holes" or whatever it is for the day. 

[Brent Hutto]

Brent and Garland,

I need to learn to not care.  I've heard it does wonder for your score.  I (and everyone I play with) can't get away from the fact that "oh wow, I'm playing well today, 3 over through 15 holes" or whatever it is for the day. 

That's typically my frame of mind when playing solo, which I do more often than I'd ideally wish. A certain amount of that is fun. But for me "caring" in smaller doses (one hole at a time for instance) just ups the relaxation to misery ratio when playing golf. As you're commenting, it's all too easy for that "playing well today" thought to turn into an albatross. And not the double-eagle kind.

[Sean_A]

The entire premse of "better medal play" courses seems rooted in the modern concept of par...hit the green in two and two putt.  Of course there are plenty of opportunities not to take on risk, just as is the case in matchplay.  Its just that folks are fixated with playing to par as the correct way to play golf.  To me, the difference the two is in the scoring only (and the opportunities that arise due to the state of the match), courses aren't inherently good or bad for match or medal...its another modern idea without any true grounding in reality...but instead in personal preference. Its a simple as that folks. 

Ciao       

[Garland Bayley]

Since there are golf courses that a large portion of the golfing population cannot finish a medal round on, I find it incredulous that you assert courses aren't inherently good or bad for medal play. In match play, such golfers just concede the hole and move on.

Since when is personal preference not reality. It's a game. Games are supposed to give some fun or satisfaction. Personal preferences play heavily in fun and satisfaction.

It seems to me that your conclusions are not grounded in reality, but instead in an emotionless abstraction that golf is only a mechanical process of hitting a ball eventually into a hole.

[Mark_Fine]

Pine Valley and Oakmont are two of the most challenging courses out there! On some holes the average golfer might just pick up after making double par.  At the same time there is a birdie possibility on every one. Are they match play courses or medal play courses   I think it is silly to think a course could be labeled one or the other.  Last I checked you still keep score on every hole you play in match play (even if you record an X).   Why not keep score for all 18 holes if you happen to play that many?  You still don't have too but a medal score is there if you care to record it.

[Brent Hutto]

My point is, there are lots of courses I would never want to try and finish a stroke-play round on. Take for instance the PGA National course we saw on TV a week ago. So yeah,  if I had to play there I'd certainly be playing some game that lets me pick up and move on. For my game, it seems like a purely awful course.

But that doesn't mean I think it's a *good* match play course. I think it's just a poor place to play golf (again, speaking only for myself) and the fact that match play might be the best way to accommodate its badness says nothing positive about the course at all.

And that's what it has always come down to for me. Every time I've encountered a course that might have been the oft-discussed "bad for stroke play, great for match play" venue I've come away either thinking I didn't like it at all or I liked it fine no matter what the format. I think it is possible for an oddball course to somehow fit in that narrow area you guys are describing but I've never seen it. In any event it would have to be darned rare.

It's like saying a restaurant has awful food and a poor Health Department rating so when you go there you only drink in the bar. That doesn't mean it's a great bar, it just means you wouldn't eat the food on a bet.