I was a little frustrated by the recent “Best Match Play Course at Bandon” thread, as it failed to identify the criteria for a good match play course. A few concepts, such as width and difficulty, were suggested. I don’t remember a GCA thread dedicated to discussing what makes good match play holes. I will start with some thoughts and see if a discussion breaks out.
I was also motivated to consider this topic by A.B. Mack’s recent paper on minimizing score by making smart decisions.
1. First, let’s review section 17 of the USGA Handicap Manual, “Allocation of Handicap Strokes”. Typically, matches are played by amateur golfers with established handicaps, and players “spin off” the low handicap player, with the number of handicap strokes allocated equal to the differential between the low handicap player and the other players (1 opponent for singles match play, 3 other players for fourball match play).
Section 17-1 a. states:
a. Basis of Allocation
Allocate strokes based on play of the course from the tee markers used most often by the majority of club members.
Allocate the first stroke to the hole on the first nine on which the higher-handicapped player most needs a stroke as an equalizer and the second stroke to the hole on the second nine on which the higher-handicapped player most needs a stroke as an equalizer. Alternate in this manner for the full 18 holes.
Generally the longer the hole, the greater the need for the higher-handicapped player to receive a stroke.
Based on this paragraph, we can make the assumption that the effective “slope” of longer holes is higher. In other words, the average score on a long golf hole increases faster then the average score of a short hole as the handicap increases. Although I don’t have any data here, I’m inclined to believe that low handicap holes, where
2. Let’s initially assume that a match play hole is good if there is a winner a high percentage of the time. The benefits of having a volatile match play course are obvious. If the final three holes of a course each yield a “win percentage” of 50%, then the player who is 2 down with 3 holes to play has about a 1 in 64 chance of winning the match on the 18th hole (50/2 = 25% chance for each hole, (1/4)^3 = 1/64).
3. A golf hole can yield inconsistent scores two ways. First, the hole yields an average score of about N.5, such as 3.5, 4.5, 5.5 or 6.5, for one or more players in the match. An average score of N.5 tends to minimize the frequency of how often a player makes a specific score (always makes a “5”, etc.). The second way to generate inconsistentcy is a hole with a high standard deviation of scores, a “birdie-double bogey” hole that yields a wide distribution of results.
A few years ago, I compiled a hole-by-hole scoring analysis for the courses I was playing regularly. As a result, I have a good idea of my scoring average for various types of golf holes. I was a slightly better player then; my handicap was generally in the 0-4 range, and my average total score ranged from 75.9 (Pumpkin Ridge – Ghost Creek) to 79.2 (Kinloch, where I was a member for many years).
I average about 5.0 on so-called par 4.5 holes, whether they are 500 yard par 5s with little trouble, or 450 yard 4s with water hazards in play.
I average about 3.0 – 3.1 on easy par 3 holes, 125 yards with water or severe slopes, or 150-160 yards with gentle slopes.
Examples of 3.5 holes for me are: #2 and #11 at Kingsley, #14 at Kinloch and #7 at Stone Eagle. The first two are 8-iron shots to greens with severe difficulties but no water. Kinloch #14 is an 8-iron with a lake left and long of the green, and #7 at Stone Eagle is a 210 yard drop shot (4-5 iron) with more room for misses.
Typical 4.5 holes are #1, 2, 17 and 18 at Ballyneal. #6 and #8 at Kingsley are also in this range. These are wide and long holes, or medium length and tricky holes with an emphasis on an accurate drive. In a parkland setting a 425 yard hole with trees and a medium difficult green complex is a 4.5 hole.
I average about 5.5 on difficult par 5s.
It’s clear that holes with water hazards and out of bounds penalties yield a broader distribution of scores, and while these holes probably often yield a match play “win”, I generally dislike them.
4. Let’s compare me to a top amateur or low-level professional player. My average score is about 78, and the top amateur averages about 69 from the tees I play. So 9 strokes better, or 0.5 strokes per hole. But they kill me on the long par 4s and par 5s, maybe averaging 4.3 on holes I average 5.0, but only 0.3 strokes better on the short par 3s (say 2.8 vs. 3.1). Hence the need for a stroke on the longer holes.
This can be similarly extrapolated to players who score 9 strokes higher than me.
5. I’ve had the pleasure of playing Prairie Dunes GC about 8-10 times, and it seems the prototypical round was 10 bogeys and 8 pars for a score of 80. It is very difficult. Yes, a wild driver of the ball will hit shots into the “gunch” for two stroke penalties, but for the most part, I felt I was forever getting a little out of position with two imperfect shots, and then not being able to get up and down for par. Prairie Dunes seems to me a classic example of a course where a little mistake means missing an 8-foot putt for par. Whether this yields a high “win” percentage and a volatile match play course seems irrelevant. This is an invigorating style of course for match play. The big question is whether a course like Prairie Dunes enables my opponent, say a 13 handicapper, to carefully navigate his ball to make a safe bogey and win the hole. The high handicapper is always at a disadvantage.
6. It is very important for a good match play hole to give the player a reasonable chance to make bogey, if out of position after one shot.
7. So now I’ve come full circle in my argument, and will now reject the golf hole that yields a wide distribution of scores, while maintaining my stance that holes that yield an N.5 score, for at least one player in the match, are desirable. Water hazards and OB are the typical troubles that spread out the scores, and these are demoralizing and not fun. Holes where the difference between par and bogey is often a 4-10 foot putt hold intrigue.
8. One type of hole I did not mention is the long-iron or fairway wood length par 3, with no water or OB, to a large green complex. They are a favorite of mine. They yield medium length second shots, and often result in the exciting 4-10 foot par putts that can determine a win. #3 and #5 at Pasatiempo are sensational, though my average score at the 3rd is probably around 3.8-4.0.
9. Therefore, we return to what is considered conventional wisdom here. The best match play course shall possess all of the traits of a good medal play course, but should emphasize the use of long and short holes. You could make the argument that more than 4 par 5s is desirable, and the par 3s should be varied in length, with at least two long ones. A good match course for the day also depends on whether the players have significantly different handicaps. I want a wide course with little to no water in play, that emphasizes positioning and a gradual penalty for inaccuracy. A good tie in match play is just as intriguing as a win. Ultimately, my enjoyment of a match rests primarily on my personal enjoyment of the shots presented.
I’m sure I’ll think of something else.