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.